Madison v. State
| Decision Date | 20 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. A14A1402.,A14A1402. |
| Citation | Madison v. State, 329 Ga. App. 856, 766 S.E.2d 206 (Ga. App. 2014) |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MADISON v. The STATE. |
Miller & Key, Joseph Scott Key, McDonough, for Appellant.
Margaret Heap, Dist. Atty., Emily Thomas Puhala, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Appellee.
Lawrence Madison appeals from his convictions for child molestation, two counts of sexual battery, and aggravated sexual battery.1He asserts the general grounds and that numerous errors below entitle him to a new trial.For the reasons explained below, we affirm Madison's child molestation conviction.But, based upon an error in the trial court's charge to the jury, we reverse his sexual battery and aggravated sexual battery convictions.
(Citations and footnote omitted; emphasis in original.)Jackson v. Virginia,443 U.S. 307, 319(III)(B), 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560(1979).
So viewed, the record shows that Madison's child molestation conviction arose out of his conduct in October 2006 when the victim, Madison's adopted stepdaughter, was 15 years old.His sexual battery and aggravated sexual battery convictions relate to his actions in October 2009, when the victim was 18 years old.Evidence of the victim's allegation that Madison molested her in 2003 was admitted during the trial, but Madison was not charged with a crime for this alleged conduct.
The State submitted evidence showing that in 2003, when the victim was eleven years old, she reported to an after-school care provider that her stepfather was touching her inappropriately.The provider informed the victim's mother as well as the police about the victim's allegation.The victim testified that in 2003, Madison would give her a back massage and then “he moved to the front” and touched her breasts.She explained that She explained that she later denied that Madison did anything inappropriate in the ensuing investigation, because Madison and her mother attacked her, told her “not to tell the whole truth,”she“didn't want him to get in trouble,” and did not want to be taken away from her family.She stated that she had been taken to a runaway shelter and “she did not want to stay there anymore and [she] just wanted out of the whole situation.”
The victim's mother testified that the victim told her in 2003 that she was uncomfortable with Madison touching her shoulders and nothing more.She denied coaching the victim, and explained that there was an agreement in the family after this report “for him not to touch her shoulders.”A police investigator testified that after her investigation, including an interview with the victim in which she denied that her father touched her breasts, a decision was made “that there wasn't really criminal conduct involved.”
The victim testified that after she returned home in 2003, Madison once again started hovering over her, rubbing her feet, brushing her hair, and watching her while she slept in the middle of the night.When she yelled for her mother in the middle of the night, her mother would come running and Madison would make an excuse for being in her room claiming, for example, that he was looking for something.The victim testified that after she made these reports, she would go stay with her grandmother for a few weeks or a month before returning home.Between 2003 and 2006, she stayed with her grandmother approximately six times.The victim's mother denied that the victim ever told her during this time period that Madison was making her uncomfortable or going into her room.
After a period of time in foster care, the victim lived with her grandmother and “basically was forced to put on a happy face.”
The victim's mother testified that both she and the victim's brother had been in the room at the time of the alleged incident and “had not seen anything” inappropriate.She explained that after the victim's first report to DFACS, she never left the victim alone with Madison.If she left the room to go the bathroom, she would make sure her son remained in the room with the victim.Because the mother was unwilling to go through another case plan with DFACS when she had been in the room when it allegedly happened, she made arrangements for the victim to live with her grandmother through the age of eighteen.
During cross-examination of a police officer, the defense established that the grand jury returned a “no bill” concluding that insufficient evidence existed to charge Madison with a crime in connection with the 2006 incident.
In 2009, the victim graduated from high school and was still living with her grandmother while attending college.Madison offered for her to work part-time at his office to earn extra money in addition to her job at a restaurant.When cross-examined about why she“would even go near him,” the victim explained:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Issa v. State
...as a whole).46 Green v. State, 291 Ga. 287, 294 (8) (a), 728 S.E.2d 668 (2012) (punctuation omitted); accord Madison v. State, 329 Ga.App. 856, 865 (2), 766 S.E.2d 206 (2014) ; Williams v. State, 303 Ga.App. 222, 230–31 (6), 692 S.E.2d 820 (2010).47 See Flournoy v. State, 294 Ga. 741, 743–4......
-
Everhart v. State
...Code, however, OCGA § 24–4–404(b) —not former Rule 31.3 —governs admission of prior difficulty evidence. See Madison v. State , 329 Ga.App. 856, 866(3), n. 5, 766 S.E.2d 206 (2014). OCGA § 24–4–404(b) incorporated former Rule 31.3's notice requirement (but not the hearing requirement) for e......
-
Lowe v. State
...law in denying the motion to sever. For example, the trial court specifically cited to the reasoning in Madison v. State , 329 Ga. App. 856, 866 (3), 766 S.E.2d 206 (2014), where the Court of Appeals held that joinder was proper because the offenses constituted "prior difficulties" between ......
-
Moon v. State
...for no lawful purpose, and constituted criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. See OCGA § 16–6–22.2(b) ; Madison v. State, 329 Ga.App. 856, 863(1)(b), 766 S.E.2d 206 (2014) (affirming appellant's sexual battery convictions and holding that evidence that victim feared appellant was suffi......