Charo v. State, A92A1203
| Decision Date | 17 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. A92A1203,A92A1203 |
| Citation | 206 Ga.App. 297,424 S.E.2d 900 |
| Parties | CHARO v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Wood, Odom & Edge, Arthur B. Edge, Newnan, for appellant.
Peter J. Skandalakis, Dist. Atty., Lisa R. Roberts, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted on two counts of child molestation (Counts I and II) and one count of cruelty to children (Count III). The jury found appellant guilty on Counts II and III and not guilty on Count I. The trial court granted appellant's motion for new trial on Count III and denied the motion on Count II. Appellant appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial on Count II, raising as his sole enumeration of error the admission of similar transaction evidence.
Appellant was charged in Count II of the indictment with placing his hand inside the pants of the victim, a nine-year-old girl. Prior to trial, the State gave notice pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3 of its intent to present evidence of a similar transaction. The similar transaction was alleged to have occurred between January 1, 1986 and December 31, 1988 and was allegedly committed by appellant touching the breasts, vaginal area and buttocks of his stepdaughter, a child under the age of 14. The trial court conducted a hearing prior to trial and ruled that the similar transaction would be admitted. The State then called, as its first witness, the similar transaction victim, who testified that when she was ten or eleven years old, appellant came into the room where she slept and touched her vagina and her breasts with his fingers and mouth. Following the testimony, the trial judge instructed the jury that appellant was not charged with molesting his stepdaughter and that the similar transaction evidence was admitted only for the purpose of illustrating appellant's bent of mind as to the charged offense.
1. Appellant, relying on Gilstrap v. State, 261 Ga. 798, 410 S.E.2d 423 (1991), argues that the similar transaction evidence should not have been admitted prior to the State introducing evidence regarding the offense with which appellant was charged. In Gilstrap, the trial court allowed the State to introduce evidence of nine similar transactions before it offered any evidence about the indicted offense. The Supreme Court indicated that the procedure raised a substantial possibility that the jury could have settled upon the guilt of the defendant before it even heard the evidence as to the indicted offense. However, the Supreme Court expressly declined to determine the limits on the trial court's discretion as to the order of the admission of evidence. Unlike Gilstrap, in the case sub judice, the State presented only one similar transaction, and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to present the similar transaction evidence before introducing evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v. State
...State, 243 Ga.App. 388(2)(a), 531 S.E.2d 785 (2000); Curtis v. State, 212 Ga. App. 237(4), 441 S.E.2d 776 (1994); Charo v. State, 206 Ga.App. 297(1), 424 S.E.2d 900 (1992). The similar transaction presented first in the present case was a robbery committed earlier the same evening as the at......
-
Cannon v. State
...appellant's argument that the similar transaction evidence should not have been admitted." (Citation omitted.) Charo v. State, 206 Ga.App. 297, 299(4), 424 S.E.2d 900 (1992). And the lapse of approximately 15 years between the offenses does not render the similar transaction inadmissible. S......
-
Lewis v. State
...evidence). The older daughter's denial of her previous statement goes to the weight of her testimony, not to its admissibility. Charo v. State.12 3. Lewis contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his defense counsel failed to: (a) cross-examine the step daughter r......
-
Pirkle v. State, A98A0907.
...to remove the case sub judice from the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Gilstrap. Accord Charo v. State, 206 Ga.App. 297, 298(1), 424 S.E.2d 900. Additionally, we note that prior to admission of the similar transaction evidence, the trial court conducted a hearing in co......