Georgia Supreme Court Rules on Juvenile Indictment Timeline in Harris Case

On April 30, 2023, 15-year-old Bjorn Harris was arrested and charged with murder, among other offenses, leading to his detention at a Youth Detention Facility. He faced a series of legal developments after being indicted on July 28, 2023, for voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

On November 16, 2023, Harris was reindicted for murder, felony murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a pistol or revolver by a person under 18. Just days later, on November 21, 2023, the superior court granted the State’s request for a nolle prosequi on the initial July 2023 indictment.

Harris subsequently filed a motion to transfer his case to juvenile court, citing OCGA § 17-7-50.1, which mandates that any child who is detained must have their charges presented to the grand jury within 180 days of detention. His argument centered on the premise that the November reindictment fell outside this 180-day period, thus stripping the superior court of its jurisdiction over his case.

The trial court agreed, referencing the precedent set in State v. Armendariz, where it was concluded that the timeline for indictment does not pause even if an initial indictment is timely. However, the State appealed this decision.

The Court determined that the superior court misinterpreted the language of OCGA § 17-7-50.1 (a), which requires the State to present charges within 180 days of a child’s detention. The Court emphasized that as long as a grand jury returns a true bill of indictment against a detained child within this timeframe, the superior court retains jurisdiction. The November reindictment, while outside the 180-day window, was deemed valid because the initial indictment was timely returned on July 28, 2023.

Consequently, the Georgia Supreme Court overruled the trial court’s reliance on Armendariz, asserting that the statute does not prohibit subsequent reindictments or deprive the superior court of jurisdiction based solely on timing. The Court concluded that Harris’s case would remain in the superior court due to the timely nature of the original indictment. The order to transfer the case to juvenile court was reversed, maintaining the superior court’s jurisdiction over the charges against Harris.