Harper v. Georgia
Annotate this Case
James R. Harper, III, Jerry W. Chapman, and Jeffery L. Pombert appealed a trial court's orders denying their various motions challenging charges of theft and violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act. The charges related to the property of Glock, Inc., and various entities associated with it, and the defendants raised issues regarding the relevant statutes of limitation. Harper, Chapman, and Pombert were indicted and charged through a pattern of "setting up entities and bank accounts and transferring Glock assets and funds through and among various of these entities and accounts, [thereby] divert[ing] and attempt[ing] to divert Glock funds to their own use and control." The defendants filed a general demurrer, special demurrer, plea in bar, and motion to dismiss, asserting various reasons why the indictment and prosecution were infirm, primarily that the relevant statutes of limitation had expired. The trial court denied the requested relief, and the defendants sought an interlocutory appeal with the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred upon an erroneous conclusion that OCGA 17-3-2.2 applied with regard to Counts Two through Eleven in the indictment, and that the date that each crime became "known" within the meaning of OCGA 17-3-2 (2) was the date upon which each crime was reported to law enforcement officers. "But, as to any count of the indictment for which it cannot be shown that Mr. Glock was the owner of the property allegedly stolen, the correct date to apply in analyzing the statute of limitation is the date that the crime became known to the victim of the crime." Thus, the Court concluded, in analyzing this issue as to these counts, the trial court made no finding on threshold date determinations. Accordingly, the case was remanded for a determination, under the proper standard, of when the statutory limitation began.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.