Miranda v. State
| Decision Date | 30 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | A20A0044 |
| Citation | 841 S.E.2d 440,354 Ga.App. 777 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MIRANDA v. The STATE. |
David T. Lock, Savannah, for Appellant.
Margaret Heap, Jennifer L. Parker, for Appellee.
Following a trial by jury, Jorge Alberto Miranda was convicted of aggravated child molestation, incest, and four counts of child molestation. Miranda now appeals, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated child molestation and incest, and (2) the State failed to prove venue for those two offenses. For the reasons set forth infra , we affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict,1 the record shows that, at the time in question, the victim, M. C., was between five to eight years old and living in her family's home in Chatham County with her mother, siblings, and Miranda, who was her stepfather. During that time, there were periods when Miranda would be at the house alone with the children.
In 2015, when M. C. was eight years old, she disclosed to her mother that Miranda had shown her pornographic videos on his laptop. M. C.’s mother then invited a cousin over to hear the allegations, and the child also disclosed that, while watching these videos, Miranda touched her inappropriately (including on her genital area); touched himself inappropriately; exposed his penis to her; and tried to put his penis inside of her mouth (though she fought him off). M. C. explained that these incidents occurred when she was home alone with Miranda, and Miranda knew when M. C.’s mother arrived back at the house because her car lights would shine through a window onto his computer screen. And if M. C. tried to lock herself in her room, Miranda would pick the lock.
When Miranda arrived home on the evening of the disclosure, M. C.’s mother confronted him with the allegations, and he admitted to trying to place his penis inside of M. C.’s mouth. Later, Miranda again admitted to his actions in a phone call with the mother that she recorded for law enforcement. During that call, the following conversation transpired:
Miranda was subsequently indicted for aggravated child molestation, incest, and four counts of child molestation, and then convicted on all counts. He moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied. This appeal follows, in which Miranda makes the enumerations of error set forth supra .
When a criminal conviction is appealed, the appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence.2 And in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not "weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt."3 Thus, the 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."4 With these guiding principles in mind, we turn to Miranda's enumerations of error.5
1. Miranda contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for aggravated child molestation and incest. We disagree.
A person commits the offense of aggravated child molestation when he or she "commits an offense of child molestation which act physically injures the child or involves an act of sodomy."6 And sodomy is committed when a person "performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another."7 Here, Miranda was indicted for aggravated child molestation in that he "did commit an indecent act ... involving [his] sexual organs ... and the mouth of [M. C.], with the intent to arouse the sexual desires of himself by having [M. C.] place her mouth on his penis, said act involving an act of sodomy[.]"
As for incest, it is committed when a person "engages in sexual intercourse or sodomy, as such term is defined in Code Section 16-6-2, with a person whom he or she knows he or she is related to either by blood or by marriage,"8 including between a father and his stepchild.9 And in this matter, Miranda was alleged to have "unlawfully engage[d] in sodomy with [M. C.], [his] stepdaughter, knowing that he is related to the said stepdaughter by marriage[.]"
Miranda maintains the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions on these charges when it did not show that he actually placed M. C.’s mouth on his penis. Instead, he asserts the State's evidence, at most, alluded to an attempt to commit sodomy. This argument is a nonstarter.
We have repeatedly explained that "[p]roof of penetration is not required for a conviction of sodomy"10 because "[a]ll that is required is some contact."11 And contrary to Miranda's suggestion, there was sufficient evidence of sodomy. To be sure, there was testimony that Miranda "tried" to place his penis in M. C.’s mouth and the child fought him off (thus suggesting there was no actual contact),12 but there was also Miranda's recorded admission to having M. C. "go down on" him "once or twice," as well as his statement that she "didn't like it and it didn't last long." Even so, Miranda contends that "go down on" is too vague to be reasonably understood as an act of sodomy. But the meaning of this obscene colloquial expression is perfectly plain.
As we have previously explained, jurors, who are presumably intelligent, also can be "presumed to have some knowledge of slang [or colloquial] expressions in common parlance in the vernacular."13 Indeed, it would be "completely unrealistic to require that witnesses, many of whom are unlearned or have limited vocabularies, describe the acts constituting the commission of crimes in statutory or technical language in order to prove the commission of such acts."14 And the vulgar colloquial phrase "go down on" is generally understood "to mean the stimulation of one's genitals by the mouth of another, and our decisions have afforded the jury some latitude in determining what the words of the specific solicitation mean."15 Thus, there was sufficient evidence by which the jury could infer that some degree of contact occurred between M. C.’s mouth and Miranda's penis when he described that he had her "go down on" him "once or twice," that she "didn't like it," and it "didn't last long."16
2. Miranda also contends that because no question was specifically asked as to where the acts of sodomy occurred, there was no evidence to prove venue for the above-mentioned offenses. Once again, we disagree.
As a general rule, the Georgia Constitution provides that a criminal case must be tried "in the county where the crime was committed."17 And when venue is at issue, "it is a jurisdictional fact that must be proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt."18 But as the Supreme Court of Georgia has explained, "the verdict must be sustained as to venue so long as the evidence would permit a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that venue was properly laid."19
Here, the testimony established that all of the acts M. C. described were committed in the family home, which was located in Chatham County. There was no suggestion that any of these acts were performed in any other location but, instead, occurred when M. C.’s mother was out of the Chatham County house, at which points Miranda would show M. C. pornographic videos and engage in acts of molestation.20 And the testimony, taken as a whole, "including the victim's testimony ..., was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the crimes were committed in [Chatham] County."21 And to the extent Miranda suggests the victim's testimony was confusing, "any conflicts in the evidence were for the jury to decide."22
For all these reasons, we affirm Miranda's convictions.
Judgment affirmed.
3 Jones v. State , 318 Ga. App. 26, 29 (1), 733 S.E.2d 72 (2012) (punctuation omitted); see also Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (III) (B), 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) ().
4 Miller v. State , 273 Ga. 831, 832, 546 S.E.2d 524 (2001) (punctuation omitted); accord Westbrooks v. State , 309 Ga. App. 398, 399-400 (1), 710 S.E.2d 594 (2011).
5 Although Miranda does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to his convictions for child molestation, our review of the record shows that there was sufficient evidence to sustain those convictions. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319 (III) (B), 99 S.Ct. 2781.
6 OCGA § 16-6-4 (c) ; see OCGA § 16-6-4 (a) (1) ().
7 OCGA § 16-6-2 (a) (1).
10 Griffis v. State , 222 Ga. App. 322, 323 (1), 474 S.E.2d 119 (1996) ; accord Bell v. State , 352 Ga. App. 802, 807 (1), 835 S.E.2d 697 (2019) ; Adams v. State , 299 Ga. App. 39, 41 (1), 681 S.E.2d 725 (2009).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fossier v. State
...rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt." Miranda v. State , 354 Ga. App. 777, 778, 841 S.E.2d 440 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). So viewed, the evidence presented at trial showed that the 12-year-old1 victim......
-
Becton v. State
...that "some degree of contact occurred between [K. C.’s] mouth and [Becton's] penis." (Emphasis in original.) Miranda v. State , 354 Ga. App. 777, 780 (1), 841 S.E.2d 440 (2020) (jurors are presumed to have some knowledge of colloquial expressions such that defendant's admission to having th......