At the law office of George C. Creal, Jr., P.C., Trial Lawyers, we are committed to staying at the forefront of legal developments to provide our clients with the strongest possible defense against DUI and traffic-related charges. A recent landmark decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, Spackman v. The State (A25A0235, decided July 1, 2025), has significantly altered the landscape for misdemeanor traffic offense prosecutions, including DUIs, in Georgia. This ruling could have a profound impact on your DUI case, and our team is here to explain what it means and how we can leverage it to protect your rights.
What is the Spackman Decision?
The Spackman case addressed a critical question: when does the prosecution of a
Historically, Georgia courts have been divided on this issue, creating two conflicting lines of authority. Some decisions held that prosecution begins when the UTC is issued (e.g., Rustin v. State, 208 Ga. App. 431), while others maintained it starts when the UTC is filed with the court (e.g., Roberts v. State, 280 Ga. App. 672). The Spackman decision resolves this conflict definitively, ruling that prosecution commences when the UTC is filed with the court, not when it is issued.
In the Spackman case, the defendant was issued UTCs for misdemeanor traffic offenses on October 7, 2016, but those citations were never filed with a court. Instead, the state filed a formal accusation on October 11, 2018—more than two years after the offense date. Spackman argued that the prosecution was untimely, as it began with the filing of the accusation, which fell outside the two-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversing Spackman’s convictions and overruling prior cases that held prosecution begins with UTC issuance.
Why Does This Matter for DUI Defense?
The Spackman decision is a significant victory for defendants facing DUI charges in Georgia. Here’s how it impacts your case:
1. Stricter Statute of Limitations Enforcement
The ruling clarifies that the two-year statute of limitations for misdemeanor DUIs (OCGA § 17-3-1(e)) is not automatically satisfied when a UTC is issued. Instead, the state must file the UTC or a formal accusation with the court within two years of the alleged offense. If the state fails to do so, the prosecution may be barred, potentially leading to a dismissal of the charges. This creates a new avenue for defense attorneys to challenge cases where filing delays occur.
2. Protection Against Prolonged Uncertainty
Previously, under the *Rustin* line of cases, the issuance of a UTC could effectively “toll” the statute of limitations indefinitely, allowing the state to delay filing charges for years. This left defendants in limbo, facing the stress of unresolved charges long after the incident. *Spackman* ensures that the state must act promptly to file the UTC, aligning with the purpose of statutes of limitations: to protect defendants from stale prosecutions when evidence and memories fade.
3. Enhanced Prosecutorial Accountability
The decision reinforces the role of prosecutors in deciding whether and when to pursue a case. As noted in *Spackman*, a UTC’s issuance by a law enforcement officer does not involve prosecutorial discretion. By requiring court filing to commence prosecution, the ruling ensures that solicitors or district attorneys actively review and pursue cases, preventing automatic prosecutions based solely on an officer’s citation.
4. Potential for Case Dismissals
For individuals charged with DUI, *Spackman* opens the door to challenging cases where the UTC was not filed within the two-year window. If you were issued a UTC but the state delayed filing it with the court—or filed a formal accusation after the two-year period—your case may be subject to dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds. Our experienced DUI defense team can investigate the filing timeline in your case to determine if this defense applies.
How Can George C. Creal, Jr., P.C., Help?
The Spackman decision underscores the importance of having a knowledgeable DUI attorney who understands the nuances of Georgia law. At George C. Creal, Jr., P.C., we are already integrating this ruling into our defense strategies to protect clients in Carroll County and across Georgia. Here’s how we can assist:
- Case Review for Statute of Limitations Violations: We will meticulously examine the timeline of your DUI case to determine if the state failed to file the UTC or accusation within the two-year statute of limitations. If so, we can file a plea in bar to seek dismissal of the charges.
- Aggressive Defense Strategies: Beyond *Spackman*, we explore every possible defense, from challenging the validity of the traffic stop to scrutinizing field sobriety tests and breathalyzer results.
- Personalized Representation: With over 25 years of experience, George C. Creal, Jr., and our team provide individualized attention, ensuring your case is handled with the care and expertise it deserves.
- Local Expertise: Based in Atlanta, we serve clients in Carroll County, Douglas County, Haralson County, and throughout Metro Atlanta, leveraging our deep understanding of local courts and prosecutors.
What Should You Do If Facing a DUI Charge?
If you’ve been charged with a DUI in Carroll County or elsewhere in Georgia, time is critical. The Spackman decision highlights the importance of acting quickly to preserve your rights and explore all possible defenses. Contact George C. Creal, Jr., P.C., Trial Lawyers, for a free case evaluation. We will review the details of your arrest, including the UTC issuance and filing dates, to determine if Spackman applies to your case.
Don’t let a DUI charge jeopardize your future. With the Spackman decision in our arsenal, we are better equipped than ever to fight for a dismissal, reduction, or acquittal. Call us today at 404-333-0706 or visit www.georgecreal.com to schedule your consultation.
George C. Creal, Jr., P.C., Trial Lawyers
480 John Wesley Dobbs Ave
NE Unit 190
Atlanta, GA 30312
Disclaimer
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contacting our office does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is unique, and outcomes depend on specific circumstances.