McLamb v. State
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | McMURRAY; BANKE, C.J., and BENHAM |
| Citation | McLamb v. State, 337 S.E.2d 360, 176 Ga.App. 727 (Ga. App. 1985) |
| Decision Date | 03 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 71173,71173 |
| Parties | McLAMB v. The STATE. |
Randall M. Clark, Brunswick, for appellant.
Glenn Thomas, Jr., Dist. Atty., John B. Johnson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant was convicted of child molestation and brings this appeal enumerating three errors. Held:
1. In his first enumeration, defendant contends the State failed to prove the commission of an offense within the four-year statute of limitation. In criminal cases, the limitation period "runs (subject to special circumstances) from the time of the criminal act to the time of indictment." Hall v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 625, 626, 216 S.E.2d 839. See Cain v. State, 144 Ga.App. 249(1), 240 S.E.2d 750. Cain v. State, 144 Ga.App. 249(1), 240 S.E.2d 750, supra. The indictment was dated January 16, 1985. The victim, defendant's stepdaughter, was 11 years old at the time of trial. She testified that prior to moving into a "new house," the defendant went into her room at night and "rubbed" her "between [the] legs." At first, the defendant "rubbed" the victim through her underwear. On one occasion, defendant "rubbed" the victim inside her underwear. The victim could not state when these acts took place. She was able to testify, however, that after moving into the "new house" the defendant did something "like that" again. In the words of the victim: "He just rubbed ... between my legs." The victim's mother testified (and the defendant admitted) that the family moved into the "new house" in July 1981. This evidence was more than sufficient to demonstrate that the offense occurred within four years of the date of the indictment. Cain v. State, 144 Ga.App. 249(1), 240 S.E.2d 750, supra.
2. In his second enumeration of error, defendant asserts the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict. We disagree. The child molestation statute (formerly Code Ann. § 26-2019, now OCGA § 16-6-4) is violated when a person "does any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 14 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person." The evidence and all inferences therefrom demonstrated that within four years of the indictment the defendant erotically touched the victim to arouse or satisfy his own sexual desires. The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of child molestation. Giles v. State, 143 Ga.App. 558(1), 239 S.E.2d 168; Henry v. State, 154 Ga.App. 120, 267 S.E.2d 653.
3. In his final enumeration of error, defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to replace a petit juror with an alternate juror. On voir dire, no member of the jury answered affirmatively when the panel was asked if anyone knew the victim's grandmother, "Ann Crosby." Thereafter, the grandmother, Doris Ann Crosby, was called to the witness stand. After she testified, one member of the jury, Margaret Tullos, informed the court that although she did not recognize the victim's grandmother by name, she realized, upon seeing the grandmother, that she did, in fact, know her. (The victim's grandmother was a patient of the physician for whom the juror worked.) The court thereupon made inquiries concerning the impartiality of the juror. To these inquiries, the juror responded that she would not let the fact that she knew the victim's grandmother have any...
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
-
Munn v. State
...of impairment to exercise peremptory challenges intelligently, under the circumstances the trial court did not err. McLamb v. State, 176 Ga.App. 727(3), 337 S.E.2d 360; cf. Poole v. State, 262 Ga. 668, 670(2), 424 S.E.2d 275; Jones v. State, 247 Ga. 268, 270(2b), 275 S.E.2d 67. The trial co......
-
Deal v. State
...acquaintance with them, he failed to establish juror misconduct or any concomitant harm from the error alleged. McLamb v. State, 176 Ga.App. 727, 729(3), 337 S.E.2d 360 (1985); see Holcomb v. State, 268 Ga. 100, 103(2), 485 S.E.2d 192 6. Deal claims the trial court erred by refusing to ask ......
-
Whisnant v. Coots
... ... "A. No ... "Q. So she's never been in the state where she was unable to think about what was going on? She's always mentally aware? ... "A. She's been mentally aware. There's ... ...
-
Brundage v. State
...shown, will not constitute an abuse of discretion. Mosley v. State, 257 Ga. 382(4), 359 S.E.2d 653 (1987). See also McLamb v. State, 176 Ga.App. 727(3), 337 S.E.2d 360 (1985); Harbin v. State, 165 Ga.App. 631(1), 302 S.E.2d 386 (1983). In the present case, there was no showing that the juro......