Shepherd v. State

Decision Date14 November 2019
Docket NumberA19A2186
CitationShepherd v. State, 353 Ga.App. 228, 836 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. App. 2019)
Parties SHEPHERD v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Lora Michelle Alsher, for Appellant.

Rosemary M. Greene, District Attorney, Sharon Moyer Fox, Calhoun, Assistant District Attorney, for Appellee.

Mercier, Judge.

Following a jury trial, Michael Lee Shepherd was convicted of multiple counts of aggravated child molestation, child molestation, attempted child molestation, and cruelty to children. The trial court denied Shepherd’s motion for new trial, and he appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. For reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. See Terry v. State , 293 Ga. App. 455, 667 S.E.2d 109 (2008). We do not weigh the evidence or resolve issues of witness credibility, but merely determine whether the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.

So viewed, the evidence shows that Shepherd has two sons, D. S. and A. S., and one daughter, E. S. In 2014, the Department of Family and Children Services ("DFCS") received information regarding allegations of domestic violence and substance abuse in Shepherd’s home. DFCS removed the children from the home and placed them in foster care, where they disclosed to their foster mother that Shepherd had beaten them on numerous occasions. D. S. and E. S. also reported that Shepherd had sexually abused them. The foster mother reported the outcries to DFCS personnel, who contacted the police.

The children subsequently described physical beatings and sexual abuse during forensic interviews that were video-recorded and played for the jury. They also reported the abuse to a medical provider, recounting various incidents of sexual and physical abuse, including that Shepherd hit them, threatened them with weapons, and slammed D. S. against a sink. The police obtained a search warrant for Shepherd’s home and discovered specific items mentioned by the children, including a sword, drug paraphernalia, a back scratcher, and pornographic videos.

The three children, who ranged in age from ten to twelve years old at the time of trial, testified about the physical abuse inflicted by their father. They asserted that Shepherd beat A. S. with his hands and a wooden back scratcher, causing A. S. to bleed. Shepherd also threatened A. S. with an ax and kicked him down a flight of stairs. Shepherd hit D. S. and E. S. with the back scratcher, held a knife to D. S.’s throat while choking him, cut D. S.’s hand with a knife, and placed a gun to D. S.’s head. Shepherd similarly threatened E. S. with weapons, putting a gun to her head and a sword to her throat.

D. S. and E. S. further described the sexual abuse. Both testified that Shepherd made them watch pornographic videos. After watching the videos and at Shepherd’s insistence, D. S. masturbated, and E. S. placed her mouth on D. S.’s penis. Shepherd also forced E. S. to place her mouth on his penis more than one time, and Shepherd made D. S. place his mouth on Shepherd’s penis. Shepherd attempted to touch E. S.’s genital area with his mouth and hand. And he made D. S. and E. S. smoke drugs. The jury found that Shepherd committed multiple offenses: five counts of aggravated child molestation by forcing E. S. to place her mouth on his penis on two occasions (Counts 1 and 2), placing his mouth on E. S.’s genital area (Count 3), having E. S. place her mouth on D. S.’s penis (Count 4), and having D. S. place his mouth on Shepherd’s penis (Count 12); two counts of child molestation by showing pornographic material to D. S. and E. S. (Count 5) and having D. S. place his hand on his own penis (Count 13); one count of criminal attempt to commit child molestation by trying to place his hand on E. S.’s genital area (Count 6); and fifteen counts of cruelty to children by hitting E. S. with his hand (Count 7), putting a sword to E. S.’s throat (Count 8), placing a firearm to the heads of D. S. and E. S. (Counts 9 and 14), forcing D. S. and E. S. to smoke a substance that had the effect of a drug (Counts 11 and 20), placing a knife to D. S.’s head (Count 15), cutting D. S. with a knife (Count 16), choking D. S. (Count 17), hitting D. S. with a back scratcher (Count 18), slamming D....

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
3 cases
  • Miranda v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 30, 2020
    ...(b), 547 S.E.2d 569 (2001) ; Wimpey v. State , 180 Ga. App. 529, 530 (2), 349 S.E.2d 773 (1986).12 See Shepherd v. State , 353 Ga.App. 228, 229–30 (1), 836 S.E.2d 221, 223 (1) (2019) ("With respect to Count 3, which alleged that [defendant] committed aggravated child molestation by placing ......
  • Spires v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 2020
    ...2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). This Court neither weighs the evidence nor resolves issues of witness credibility. Shepherd v. State , 353 Ga. App. 228, 228, 836 S.E.2d 221 (2019). With these principles in mind, we look to each of Spires’ claims. (a) The first count of the indictment charges S......
  • Hudson v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 2019