Skip to main content

Lee v. State

Citations

  • 709 S.E.2d 762
  • 289 Ga. 95
  • 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 1308
  • 2011 Ga. LEXIS 280

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the second accusation substantially amended the first accusation and therefore did not relate back with respect to the charge of pimping because the first accusation charged the defendant only with the distinct crimes of prostitution and keeping a place of prostitution
  • explaining that whether an amendment to an accusation or indictment after expiration of the statute of limitation broadens or substantially amends the original charge is an issue of law
  • reviewing whether the evidence supported a jury finding that the crimes occurred within the applicable statute of limitation
  • trial court erred in failing to grant motion in arrest of judgment because charge of pimping in second accusation was included only by substantial amendment outside limitation period to the original accusation alleging prostitution
  • trial court erred in failing to grant motion in arrest of judgment because charge of pimping in second accusation was included only by substantial amendment outside limitations period to the original accusation alleging prostitution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.