Prejean v. State
| Citation | 433 S.E.2d 628,209 Ga.App. 411 |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A0365,A93A0365 |
| Parties | PREJEAN v. The STATE. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Davidson & Fuller, Stephen P. Fuller, Norcross, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., J. Clayton Culp, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
A jury found Kevin Prejean guilty of cruelty to children for immersing a minor child in scalding water. He appeals from his conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial.
1. Prejean contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for directed verdict of acquittal made at the close of all of the evidence. A directed verdict of acquittal is authorized only where there is no evidence to support a verdict to the contrary. Lane v. State, 177 Ga.App. 553, 554, 340 S.E.2d 228 (1986). After a review of the entire record, we find that a verdict of acquittal was not demanded in this case.
The victim's mother left the two-year-old victim and his sister in Prejean's care. Prejean testified that the victim's mother had requested that he "clean up" the victim because he had wet his diaper. Prejean decided to give the victim a bath. Several hours later, the victim's mother was notified that the child had been burned. A physician testified that she was suspicious that the child's burns were "non-accidental" and described the burns as deep second and third degree immersion burns covering almost one-third of the child's body. She also testified that the victim's skin was burned in a uniform manner. This suggests an immersion burn, rather than a burn occurring in the manner Prejean described to the police investigator as set forth below.
An investigator from the police department interviewed Prejean in an attempt to find out what had caused the child's injury. The investigator testified that Prejean had told him that he left a pot of water boiling on the stove and then went upstairs, leaving the victim downstairs playing with a beach ball. Shortly thereafter, he heard the victim scream and returned to find the victim with the pot between his legs and hot water everywhere. He implicated the victim's six-year-old sister during this interview.
Prejean changed his story at trial, testifying that he had placed the child in the tub, turned on the water and then left the child unattended while he answered the phone. After hearing the child scream, Prejean returned to the bathroom and saw that the child had suffered a burn. Prejean admitted having lied to the investigator about how the burn had occurred. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find Prejean guilty of cruelty to children beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The trial court did not err in denying Prejean's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
2. Prejean contends that the trial court erred in allowing an expert witness to testify that the victim's burn from immersion in the water was "non-accidental." Prejean argues that this testimony was improperly admitted because whether the burn was intentional or accidental was the ultimate issue to be decided by the jury. We recognize the general principle that witnesses are not allowed to express their opinion as to ultimate issues involved in the case. See Maxwell v. State, 262 Ga. 73, 76(5), 414 S.E.2d 470 (1992). Reviewing the physician's testimony as a whole, she opines that she was "suspicious that [the victim's burn] was ... a non-accidental burn." This testimony does not infringe upon the jury's role in deciding the ultimate issue. The physician was merely attesting that, based upon her experience, the type of burn sustained by the victim resembled those that she had seen before which were not accidental. "An expert's special knowledge may be derived from experience as well as study." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Volcey v. State, 200 Ga.App. 881, 883(2), 410 S.E.2d 36 (1991). The expert did not testify that this burn was indeed non-accidental, nor did she opine that Prejean caused the burn. Her testimony was properly admitted.
Moreover, the jury was authorized to determine whether to disregard the expert's testimony regarding the nature of the burn. It is well-settled that "a jury is always free to reject expert opinion testimony and substitute their own knowledge and experience." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hill v. All Seasons Florist, 201 Ga.App. 870, 872(1), 412 S.E.2d 619 (1991). We find no error.
3. Prejean complains that the trial court impermissibly restricted his closing argument by disallowing him to comment on the State's failure to produce two expert witnesses. As a general rule, the defendant is not permitted to comment on the State's failure to produce certain witnesses. Wilson v. Zant, 249 Ga. 373, 290 S.E.2d 442 (1982). Prejean concedes that Wilson, supra, is controlling as to this issue. He argues, however, that the court should make an exception to the rule in this case. It appears that Prejean sought to comment on the absence of these witnesses in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. State
...this court's decision in Wilson v. Zant, supra, 249 Ga. 373, 290 S.E.2d 442, and the Court of Appeals' decision in Prejean v. State, 209 Ga.App. 411(3), 433 S.E.2d 628 (1993), which cited Wilson v. Zant as controlling In Wilson v. Zant, this court addressed Wilson's contention about the pro......
-
Hathcock v. State
...opinion testimony and substitute their own knowledge and experience." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Prejean v. State, 209 Ga.App. 411, 412(2), 433 S.E.2d 628 (1993). Defendant's reliance on Nagel v. State, 262 Ga. 888, 427 S.E.2d 490 (1993), is misplaced. That case simply held that i......
-
Avila-Nunez v. State
...occurred over several weeks, not during the short time span the babysitter purportedly kept the child. See Prejean v. State, 209 Ga.App. 411, 412(1), 433 S.E.2d 628 (1993). The evidence was sufficient to present a jury question on whether Avila-Nunez maliciously inflicted physical pain on t......
-
Howard v. Bank South, N.A.
... ... Bank South filed several motions, including a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. After considering the pleadings, motions and hearing argument of counsel, the trial court entered an order expressly determining that there ... ...
-
Pre-litigation Contractual Waivers of the Right to a Jury Trial Are Unenforceable Under Georgia Law - E. Michelle Robinson
...799 (1994). 4. 209 Ga. App. 407,408, 433 S.E.2d 625, 626 (1993), aff'd, 264 Ga. 339,444 S.E.2d 799 (1994). 5. 209 Ga. App. at 410-11, 433 S.E.2d at 628. 6. O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-1-1 to 9-15-14 (1993). 7. 209 Ga. App. at 410, 433 S.E.2d at 628; O.C.G.A. Sec. 9-11-39 (1993). 8. 209 Ga. at 410, 433 ......