Shaughnessy v. State
| Decision Date | 28 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | A22A0914 |
| Citation | 365 Ga.App. 467,879 S.E.2d 102 |
| Parties | SHAUGHNESSY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Sylvia Goldman, MaryAnn Donnelly, Goldman & Donnelly, for Appellant.
Flynn Duncan Broady Jr., District Attorney, Leslie Anna Coots, Assistant District Attorney, for Appellee.
After a jury trial, Gary T. Shaughnessy was convicted of multiple counts of child molestation and aggravated sexual battery for acts committed against A. V. when she was eight and nine years old. Shaughnessy argues on appeal that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to cross-examine several witnesses. But he has shown neither deficient performance nor prejudice, so we affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, the trial evidence showed that Shaughnessy was a member of A. V.’s extended family; he attended the same church as her family, and he often spent time with them.
Shaughnessy visited A. V.’s house regularly and would spend long periods of time alone with A. V. in her bedroom with the door closed. There, as A. V. testified at trial, Shaughnessy would "touch [her] private and butt" with his fingers, both inside and outside, and he would make her touch his "private" and "butt" with her hands. If A. V. did not spend time with him when he was at the family's house (because, for example, she had a friend visiting), Shaughnessy would sulk, act jealous or angry, and sometimes leave.
Shaughnessy's actions made A. V. feel scared and nervous, and over time a visibly distressed A. V. began telling her parents that she did not want to see Shaughnessy and asking if he had to visit. She began having nightmares in which she would cry out,
Shaughnessy also engaged in behavior, observed by others, that an expert in forensic interviewing described to the jury as "grooming." For example, Shaughnessy frequently gave A. V. gifts such as money, candy, jewelry, and toys. He spoke to A. V. on the phone daily and would get angry if she did not want to talk with him. In public, he would French kiss A. V., caress her leg, and force her to sit on his lap near his crotch, becoming angry if she resisted.
In the summer of 2017, when A. V. was nine years old, an incident occurred during a church service that ultimately led to the involvement of law enforcement. During the service, people sitting in the balcony observed A. V. and Shaughnessy in a seat below. A. V. was lying on Shaughnessy with her head near his crotch as Shaughnessy slowly stroked the length of her bare leg. This went on for a period of ten to fifteen minutes. This incident was reported to the church's senior pastor.
One of the people who saw the church incident informed A. V.’s older brother about it, and in a conversation between the siblings A. V. revealed to her brother what Shaughnessy had been doing. Around the same time, A. V.’s Sunday school teacher observed the girl acting unusually withdrawn and asked how she was feeling. In the conversation that followed, A. V. revealed that Shaughnessy made her do "inappropriate things," and on further questioning she stated that he "makes [her] pull down [her] pants, and he touches [her]," and that it had been happening for about a year. The Sunday school teacher informed the senior pastor about what A. V. had told her.
The church's senior pastor notified the police about possible child molestation. In a subsequent forensic interview, A. V. disclosed sexual abuse. The interviewer testified at trial that A. V. told him Shaughnessy "made her touch his penis, her butt, his butt, that he touched her vagina on the inside and the outside and her anus on the inside and outside, and then he kisse[d] her on the lips." A. V. provided details about those acts and the context in which they occurred, consistent with her developmental stage. A recording of that interview was played for the jury.
After law enforcement began investigating the allegations, Shaughnessy had a telephone conversation with his half-brother in which he stated that he "might have done something" and that "it might have something to do with [his] niece," which his half-brother took to mean A. V. Shaughnessy's half-brother became upset, and Shaughnessy continued, "well, a man's got needs." He also said, "I'm not exactly the brother you thought I was."
In later conversations with his wife from jail, Shaughnessy made statements that could be construed as admissions of culpability. They include: "What I did was a felony"; "I wish I'd never done what I did"; and that his half-brother was "spreading it around what I did." Recordings of those conversations were played for the jury.
Shaughnessy's sole claim of error is that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance. We disagree.
Bonner v. State , 314 Ga. 472, 474 (1), 877 S.E.2d 588 (2022) (citations omitted). On appellate review, we "accept[ ] a trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations on an ineffectiveness claim unless they are clearly erroneous, but we apply legal principles to the facts de novo." Id. (citation and punctuation omitted).
Shaughnessy argues that he received...
To continue reading
Request your trial