Cawthon v. State
| Citation | 830 S.E.2d 270,350 Ga.App. 741 |
| Decision Date | 21 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | A19A0638 |
| Parties | CAWTHON v. The STATE. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
James Edward Bischoff, for Appellant.
Benjamin David Coker, Elizabeth Morgan Kendrick, for Appellee.
Kristopher Cawthon appeals his conviction for abuse of a disabled adult, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict; and that the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion for a directed verdict; (2) ruling that knowledge is not an essential element of his offense; (3) allowing a witness to speculate as to his state of mind; and (4) denying his motion for a mistrial. For the reasons set forth infra , we affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,1 the record shows that H. R., the victim, was born with a disability, and at the time of the relevant events, she was 31 years old and had always lived with her parents. According to her father, H. R. did not begin walking until she was three years old, and she did not start talking until she was between three-and-a-half and four years old. During her childhood, H. R. was a slow learner and "didn’t know a lot of things like other children did." And as an adult, H. R. does not have a job, but she helps her mother, who is blind, with "little chores around the house[.]" In her free time, H. R. watches cartoons and Disney movies, and she also "does a lot of pretending" with dolls. Additionally, H. R.’s parents provide her with, inter alia , housing, food, clothing, medicine, and transportation. Indeed, H. R. does not drive, has never had a license, and is even afraid to ride a bicycle. And while H. R. receives government benefits and has a checking account, the account is in her mother’s name because she is not capable of managing her own financial affairs.
In early 2016, Cawthon moved in with S. W., one of H. R.’s neighbors in the trailer park where she lived, and shortly thereafter, S. W. and H. R. became acquainted. After they met, H. R. would stop by S. W.’s trailer occasionally to see her baby and bring him toys. But when H. R. learned that Cawthon was living with S. W., H. R. began coming over every day because she "kind of liked him a lot." At some point after meeting him, H. R. began sending Cawthon "friendly" Facebook messages, and for several weeks, Cawthon did not respond. But eventually, on March 27, 2016, Cawthon sent H. R. a message that said, When H. R. responded that she only wanted to hang out and talk to him, Cawthon told her that he was a "sex addict." H. R. and Cawthon continued to exchange Facebook messages for the next couple of weeks, but Cawthon told H. R. not to tell anyone that they were messaging each other.
On April 5, 2016, Cawthon sent a message to H. R., telling her that he wanted to have sex with her. Although H. R. told Cawthon that she did not want to do that, she went to his trailer sometime after midnight to "[j]ust talk to him as friends." When Cawthon started asking H. R. "weird like questions about sex and stuff[,]" she told him that she was a virgin and did not want to have sex. Despite H. R.’s insistence that she did not want to have sex, Cawthon brought her into his room and forced her to touch his penis. Cawthon then held her down on the floor, pulled her pants down, and penetrated her vagina with his penis. During the attack, H. R. cried and tried to fight back, but Cawthon overpowered her. When Cawthon was finished, he told H. R. not to tell anyone what happened, and she went home.
In the days following the assault, H. R.’s parents learned about the attack and reported it to law enforcement. Then, after an investigation into the matter, Cawthon was charged, via indictment, with rape and abuse of a disabled adult. Following a jury trial, he was acquitted of rape, but convicted of abuse of a disabled adult. Thereafter, Cawthon filed a motion for a new trial, which he later amended twice; and following a hearing, the motion was denied. This appeal follows.
Prior to considering Cawthon’s claims of error, we first note that the deficiencies in his brief have hindered our review of his appeal. Specifically, his statement of facts, purporting to summarize his 3-day jury trial—at which nine witnesses testified and 71 exhibits were submitted—is a single-page long and references only five pages of the trial transcript and two exhibits. Suffice it to say, this fails to comply with our rules. Indeed, Georgia Court of Appeals Rule 25 (a) (1) requires appellants to provide "a succinct and accurate statement of ... the material facts relevant to the appeal ... [and] a citation to the parts of the record or transcript essential to a consideration of the errors ...." And given that Cawthon challenges, inter alia , the sufficiency of all the evidence presented at trial to support his conviction, his cursory statement of facts, largely unsupported by record or transcript citations, fails to set forth all of the material facts relevant to at least that claim of error. Similarly, the argument sections of Cawthon’s brief dedicated to each enumeration of error likewise include scant record and transcript citations, if any at all. Thus, Cawthon’s brief also violates Georgia Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2) (i), which provides that "[e]ach enumerated error shall be supported in the brief by specific reference to the record or transcript."2 And absent such specific references, "[this] Court will not search for and may not consider that enumeration."3
As we have repeatedly cautioned litigants, it is not the function of this Court to "cull the record on behalf of a party in search of instances of error[.]"4 Instead, the burden is upon the party alleging error to "show it affirmatively in the record."5 Needless to say, Cawthon has failed to satisfy this burden. Nevertheless, because Cawthon’s brief is not entirely devoid of citations to the record and the evidence is relatively straightforward, we exercise our discretion and will attempt (when possible) to consider his appeal on the merits based on our independent review of the record and with the aid of the citations provided by the State.6 But if we have missed something in the record or misconstrued an argument, "the responsibility rests with [Cawthon’s] counsel."7 Finally, we note that our requirements as to the form of appellate briefs were created, "not to provide an obstacle, but to aid parties in presenting their arguments in a manner most likely to be fully and efficiently comprehended by this Court."8
With the foregoing in mind, we turn now to the merits of Cawthon’s appeal.
1. In his first three claims of error, Cawthon argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict, and the trial court erred in finding that knowledge is not an element of his offense. We disagree.
We review the denial of a motion for directed verdict "under the same standard as that for determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction."9 And when a criminal conviction is appealed, the evidence must be viewed "in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence."10 In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only resolve whether "a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt."11 Accordingly, the jury’s verdict will be upheld so long as "there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each fact necessary to make out the State’s case."12 With these guiding principles in mind, we turn now to Cawthon’s specific challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
(a) Disability. Cawthon first argues that, while H. R. was an adult at the time of the attack, the State failed to prove she was disabled. But in doing so, he cites only to the statutory definitions of "disabled adult" and "mentally or physically incapacitated" set forth infra , and details his version of the evidence presented at trial without a single citation to the record, trial transcript, or exhibits. Cawthon then summarily asserts that, under those statutory definitions, "[H. R.] is not a disabled adult." As previously noted, this Court will not typically address arguments in the complete absence of record and transcript citations.13 Furthermore, an assertion of error followed by a legal citation is not legal analysis, which is, at a minimum, "a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts."14 Nevertheless, given the significant liberty interests at stake and the straightforward nature of the evidence presented, we will address this issue.
OCGA § 16-5-102 (a) provides, in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pneumo Abex, LLC v. Long
...something in the record or misconstrued an argument, the responsibility rests with [appellants’] counsel." Cawthon v. State , 350 Ga. App. 741, 743, 830 S.E.2d 270 (2019).4 The Longs also asserted claims for loss of consortium, products liability, and punitive damages, but those claims are ......
-
Jernigan v. State
...these reasons, we affirm Jernigan's convictions.Judgment affirmed. Rickman and Brown, JJ., concur.1 See, e.g. , Cawthon v. State , 350 Ga. App. 741, 741, 830 S.E.2d 270 (2019).2 The container at issue—which Kim refers to as his lunch box—is described by other witnesses as a bag.3 Howard v. ......
-
Yash Solutions, LLC v. N.Y. Global Consultants Corp.
...the merits based on our independent review of the record and with the aid of the citations provided by [NYG]." Cawthon v. State , 350 Ga. App. 741, 743, 830 S.E.2d 270 (2019) ; see , e.g ., Patterson v. State , 327 Ga. App. 695, 696 (1), 761 S.E.2d 101 (2014) (exercising discretion to addre......
-
Serdula v. State
...admitted the reason he hid his phone in the bathroom was to record other employees without their consent.65 Cawthon v. State , 350 Ga. App. 741, 743, 830 S.E.2d 270 (2019) (punctuation omitted); see Dixon v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth. , 242 Ga. App. 262, 266 (4), 529 S.E.2d 398 (200......
-
Domestic Relations
...Abelson, 260 Ga. 711, 713, 398 S.E.2d 557, 560).144. Id. at 732, 830 S.E.2d at 269.145. Id. at 733, 830 S.E.2d at 269.146. Id. at 734, 830 S.E.2d at 270 (punctuation omitted) (quoting Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, 260 Ga. at 715, 398 S.E.2d at 561 (1990))....