Bradley v. State
Decision Date | 04 August 2017 |
Docket Number | A17A0668. |
Parties | BRADLEY v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rodney Samuel Zell, Atlanta, for Appellant.
Richard Lowery Perryman III, Nashville, Charles M. Stines, Valdosta, Rebekah Maddox Ditto, for Appellee.
Following a jury trial, Shelton Bradley was found guilty of aggravated child molestation, rape, and incest for sexually abusing his 15-year-old stepdaughter. Bradley appeals the denial of his motion for new trial, contending that the trial court erred by not answering a question from the jury and by commenting on the credibility of the victim. He also alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Bradley's convictions but remand for his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence that DNA recovered from the victim was male DNA that did not match Bradley.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the evidence adduced at trial shows that on the evening of December 10, 2007, Q. H. was watching television in the den of her family's home when Bradley took her into the laundry room and asked if he could touch her. When Q. H. refused, Bradley pulled down her pants and licked her vagina. Q. H. ran to the bedroom she shared with her sister and locked the door. Bradley knocked on the door and told Q. H. to come out because he wanted to talk to her. When Q. H. left the bedroom, Bradley took her into the den where he forced her to have sex with him. Following the incident, Bradley took Q. H. into the bathroom, at which point Bradley removed the condom he had used and put it in the sink. Bradley told Q. H. that if she said anything, he would hurt her mother.
Q. H.'s brother helped her escape with her sister through a bedroom window and the two girls ran to a neighbor's house. The neighbor testified that Q. H. and her sister came into her house screaming and crying and told her that Bradley had sex with Q. H. Q. H. also told the neighbor that Bradley left a condom in the bathroom sink. The neighbor called the police. A physical examination conducted at The Haven Rape Crisis Center showed an abrasion of the labia consistent with friction, such as forced sexual intercourse.
Officers arrested Bradley that night, and during a walk-through of the home, a detective discovered a condom in the sink, a condom wrapper on the couch in the den, and a tissue with blood on it in the laundry room. At trial, Q. H. testified that she lied about the entire incident to get Bradley out of the house because he was strict and would argue with her mother. When asked why she did not recant her allegation sooner, Q. H. testified that she was told that if she changed her story she would be prosecuted.
1. Bradley complains that the trial court erred in not answering a question from the jury about whether "unconsented" oral sex constitutes rape. In response, the trial court stated, "I cannot—or none of us can enter into a general discussion with [you] concerning these issues." The trial court then recharged the jury on the definitions of rape and aggravated child molestation as follows:
A juror asked the trial court to read the rape charge one more time and the court acquiesced. The jury then asked if there is a difference between statutory rape and rape to which the trial court responded: Bradley did not object.
Initially, it is important to note that [Bradley] did not object to any portion of the trial court's jury charges, and under OCGA § 17-8-58, "any party who objects to any portion of the charge to the jury or the failure to charge the jury shall inform the court of the specific objection and the grounds for such objection before the jury retires to deliberate." And the failure to so object precludes appellate review of such portion of the jury charge, unless such portion of the jury charge constitutes plain error....
(Citations, punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Wheeler v. State , 327 Ga. App. 313, 318 (3), 758 S.E.2d 840 (2014). "[P]lain error ... will only be found if the jury instruction was erroneous; the error was obvious; the instruction likely affected the outcome of the proceedings; and the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Tran v. State , 340 Ga. App. 546, 548 (1), 798 S.E.2d 71 (2017). Because Bradley failed to object, our review is limited to whether the trial court's response constituted plain error. See Redding v. State , 296 Ga. 471, 473 (2), 769 S.E.2d 67 (2015).
Bradley contends the exchange between the trial court and the jury proves the jury was confused about the rape charge and likely convicted Bradley of rape based on conduct that did not constitute rape. He further argues that the trial court committed plain error by not answering the jury's question with a simple "no." (Punctuation omitted.) Redding , 296 Ga. at 473 (2), 769 S.E.2d 67. In this case, the trial court sought to avoid any "problematic situation" by recharging the jury on rape and aggravated child molestation, which effectively answered the question posed. See id. The trial court's recharge specifically instructed the jury that rape involves the penetration of a female sex organ with a male sex organ and that aggravated child molestation involves the sex organs of one and the mouth or anus of another. We conclude that the trial court's decision to answer the jury's question by recharging on rape and aggravated child molestation does not amount to plain error, was not obviously erroneous, and likely did not affect the outcome of the proceeding.
2. Bradley contends that the trial court violated his due process rights and OCGA § 17-8-57 by commenting on Q. H.'s credibility and expressing its opinion as to Bradley's guilt. At the close of the neighbor's testimony, the following colloquy occurred between the trial court and the neighbor:
Bradley did not object.
OCGA § 17-8-57 was amended effective July 1, 2015. While the former version of OCGA § 17-8-57 was in effect at the time of Bradley's trial, the amended version applies. See Quiller v. State , 338 Ga. App. 206, 207-209, 789 S.E.2d 391 (2016) ( ). As amended, OCGA § 17-8-57 provides:
"The purpose of this limitation at least in part is to prevent the jury from being influenced by any disclosure of the judge's opinion regarding a witness's credibility." Craft v. State , 274 Ga. App. 410, 411 (1), 618 S.E.2d 104 (2005). However, "[i]t is well settled that a trial court may propound a clarifying question in order to develop the truth of a case" or to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Durham v. State
...to the investigator. Thus the trial court was acting within its authority to "develop the truth of a case[.]" Bradley v. State , 342 Ga. App. 486, 490 (2), 804 S.E.2d 144 (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Thompson v. State , 349 Ga. App. 1, 6 (2) (a), 825 S.E.2d 413 (2019)......
-
McAllister v. State, A17A1026
...and the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Bradley v. State, 342 Ga.App. 488 (1), 804 S.E.2d 144 (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted). While the trial court misread a portion of the aggravated stalking statute, the instructio......
- Barnwell v. Douglasville Auto Detail, LLC