Harden v. State, A93A1943
| Decision Date | 16 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A1943,A93A1943 |
| Citation | 438 S.E.2d 136,211 Ga.App. 1 |
| Parties | HARDEN v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Venice R. Daley, Atlanta, Andrei G. Howze, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Barry I. Mortge, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Larry Harden appeals his conviction for aggravated child molestation. The evidence shows that in Grant Park, appellant lured a boy to his home by promising him a puppy, and forced anal sodomy upon the child. The child then ran to a neighboring apartment. The woman who lived there took him to the apartment rental office, and police were called. Immediate medical examinations revealed the child had been sexually assaulted and was nervous, upset and in pain. Appellant appeared at trial as a man. The child described appellant as a woman, but the evidence showed that appellant dressed as a woman; the neighbor to whom the child ran also had thought appellant was a woman. Appellant enumerates two errors in the trial court. Held:
1. The trial court did not err in admitting similar transaction evidence that appellant had committed a similar offense in 1977, as to which another male testified that when he was seven years old, he encountered appellant in Grant Park; appellant lured him to his home by promising to let the child play with toy trains. In that encounter, appellant was dressed as a woman, but took his wig off when he took the child to his apartment; he pointed a gun at the child and forced anal sodomy upon him. Appellant pled guilty to that charge.
This evidence was properly admitted as a similar transaction. See Stephan v. State, 205 Ga.App. 241(2), 422 S.E.2d 25; Willis v. State, 201 Ga.App. 365(2), 410 S.E.2d 827. The mere passage of time between the similar incidents in these circumstances does not lessen the validity of this evidence as a similar transaction, particularly where the defendant spent part of the intervening years in incarceration for the other offense. Moore v. State, 207 Ga.App. 412(1), 427 S.E.2d 779; see also Payne v. State, 207 Ga.App. 312(3), 428 S.E.2d 103; Stephens v. State, 205 Ga.App. 403(1), 422 S.E.2d 275.
2. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for continuance, which he sought during trial so that he could impeach the witness testifying to the similar transaction, by showing that witness' own subsequent criminal record. Proper notice was given of the State's intent to introduce evidence of that similar offense involving that witness; appellant had ample opportunity to investigate that witness'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. State
...there was no abuse of the trial court's discretion in the denial of appellant's motion for a continuance. Harden v. State, 211 Ga.App. 1(2), 438 S.E.2d 136 (1993). The record does not support appellant's contention that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of Brooks as t......
-
Swanson v. State, A04A1661.
...lapse); McGuire v. State, 266 Ga.App. 673, 677(2), 598 S.E.2d 55 (2004) (21-22 year lapse). 4. See Mullins, supra; Harden v. State, 211 Ga.App. 1(1), 438 S.E.2d 136 (1993). 5. See Weaver v. State, 246 Ga.App. 504, 505(1), 540 S.E.2d 687 ...
-
Mullins v. State
...lapse in this case is mitigated somewhat by the fact that appellant was incarcerated for eight of those years. Harden v. State, 211 Ga.App. 1(1), 438 S.E.2d 136 (1993). 3. Several times during the trial, the trial court interposed questions to the testifying witness. Appellant argues that t......