Beaudoin v. the State.

Decision Date18 July 2011
Docket NumberNo. A11A0976.,A11A0976.
Citation714 S.E.2d 624,11 FCDR 2138,311 Ga.App. 91
PartiesBEAUDOINv.The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Louis M. Turchiarelli, Marietta, for appellant.Garry Thomas Moss, Dist. Atty., Wallace W. Rogers, Jr., Cliff Head, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.McFADDEN, Judge.

After a jury trial, Gerald Beaudoin was convicted of statutory rape as a lesser included offense of rape, aggravated sexual battery, aggravated child molestation, and two counts of child molestation. He appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the refusal to dismiss a juror for cause, the admission of his statements to police, the admission of testimony from a polygraph examiner and the refusal to give a jury charge on simple battery as a lesser included offense. Because there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, the prospective juror was unbiased, the statements to police were given freely and voluntarily, there was a stipulation to the admissibility of the polygraph results and there has been no showing that simple battery was a lesser included offense of the indicted crimes, we affirm.

1. On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. We do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) McCoy v. State, 278 Ga.App. 492–493(1), 629 S.E.2d 493 (2006). So viewed, the evidence shows that Beaudoin befriended the 12–year–old victim. On various occasions, he engaged in sexual contact with her, fondling her breasts and vaginal area, inserting his finger into her vagina, and inserting his penis into her mouth and vagina. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find Beaudoin guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged offenses. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Falak v. State, 261 Ga.App. 404, 405(1), 583 S.E.2d 146 (2003).

To the extent that Beaudoin complains that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal as to the offense of forcible rape, “this complaint is rendered moot because [Beaudoin] was not found guilty of that offense. [Cit.] Banta v. State, 282 Ga. 392, 396(2), 651 S.E.2d 21 (2007).

2. Beaudoin contends that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss a prospective juror for cause after she initially indicated that she might be biased. Upon questioning, she explained that she was perfectly impartial between the state and the accused, but that she had been a child abuse victim and had a bias “against what the crime is.” She further stated that she did not know Beaudoin, that she had no bias or prejudice against him and that she would decide the case only on the evidence presented.

Whether to strike a juror for cause lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Unless the juror holds an opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant that is so fixed and definite that the juror will be unable to set the opinion aside and decide the case based on the evidence and court instructions, a court need not excuse the juror for cause. A potential juror's doubts as to his or her own impartiality or reservations about his or her ability to set aside personal experiences do not [necessarily] require the court to strike the juror, as the judge is uniquely positioned to observe the juror's demeanor and thereby to evaluate his or her capacity to render an impartial verdict. A juror who expresses a willingness to try to be objective and whose bias arises from feelings about the particular crime as opposed to feelings about the accused may be eligible for service.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Brown v. State, 243 Ga.App. 632, 632–633(1), 534 S.E.2d 98 (2000). In this case, because the prospective juror stated that her bias was against the nature of the crime of child molestation, not against Beaudoin, and that she could determine the issues impartially based on the evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike her. See Pearce v. State, 300 Ga.App. 777, 781(2), 686 S.E.2d 392 (2009). See also Roberts v. State, 258 Ga.App. 107, 109(3), 572 S.E.2d 744 (2002) (prospective juror who had been a child molestation victim was not disqualified from service in case involving child molestation).

3. Beaudoin contends that the trial court erred in denying his Jackson–Denno motion and allowing his statements to police into evidence. At a hearing held pursuant to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), “the trial court examines the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a preponderance of the evidence shows that the [statement] was voluntary. Unless clearly erroneous, a trial court's findings as to factual determinations and credibility relating to the admissibility of a [statement] will be upheld on appeal.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Clark v. State, 309 Ga.App. 749, 751–752(3), 711 S.E.2d 339 (2011).

At the Jackson–Denno hearing, Detective Todd Hicks testified that Beaudoin voluntarily came to the police station for an interview, that Beaudoin was not in custody during the interview and was free to leave at any time, that he was not threatened or promised anything, and that he was allowed to leave the station after the interview. During the interview, Beaudoin showed no reluctance in talking to the detective and asked to take a polygraph examination. A polygraph was scheduled, and several days later, Beaudoin voluntarily returned to the station. He was informed of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), signed a waiver of those rights, signed a consent form for the polygraph, signed a stipulation as to the admissibility of the polygraph results and took the polygraph examination administered by a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent. Beaudoin also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Bernal v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 4 Marzo 2021
    ...a preponderance of the evidence shows that [a] statement was voluntary." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Beaudoin v. State , 311 Ga. App. 91, 93 (3), 714 S.E.2d 624 (2011). "The standard on appeal is that the trial court's findings as to factual determinations and credibility relating t......
  • Douglas v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 8 Febrero 2017
    ...omitted)).5 Weeks v. State, 270 Ga.App. 889, 896 (4), 608 S.E.2d 259 (2004) (punctuation omitted); accord Beaudoin v. State, 311 Ga.App. 91, 93 (2), 714 S.E.2d 624 (2011) ; Reddick v. State, 264 Ga.App. 487, 496 (5) (a), 591 S.E.2d 392 (2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Springer......
  • Willis v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 15 Junio 2012
    ...made, under noncustodial circumstances. [Cits.]” Sams v. State, 239 Ga.App. at 717(2), 521 S.E.2d 848. See also Beaudoin v. State, 311 Ga.App. 91, 94(3), 714 S.E.2d 624 (2011); Jones v. State, 278 Ga.App. 616, 617(3), 629 S.E.2d 546 (2006). Thus, the trial court properly admitted the statem......
  • Blevins v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 30 Octubre 2017
    ...he provides does not show the prosecutor's use of that word. We will not cull the record in search of error. Beaudoin v. State, 311 Ga. App. 91, 95 (5), 714 S.E.2d 624 (2011).8 We note that Blevins appears to have been found guilty of the lesser included ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT