Dixson v. State

I concur in the judgment, but I do not agree with all that is said in the opinion of the majority, so I do not join it. Some of my differences with the majority merit no discussion, but one does, and I write separately for that reason. In Division 2, the majority says that the indictment sufficiently charged a violation of OCGA § 40-6-395 — even though the indictment does not mention things that are, Dixson says, essential elements of a violation — because the indictment alleges explicitly that Dixson acted “in violation of OCGA § 40-6-395.” The latter allegation saves the indictment, the…