Thompson v. State
Decision Date | 18 March 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 75566,75566 |
Citation | 367 S.E.2d 320,186 Ga.App. 471 |
Parties | THOMPSON v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Keith F. Allen, Moultrie, for appellant.
H. Lamar Cole, Dist. Atty., J. David Miller, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant was indicted for child molestation, enticing a child for indecent purposes, aggravated sodomy and two counts of rape. The evidence adduced at trial, construed most favorably to support the jury's verdicts, showed that the victim, who was under 14 years of age at the time, went to her bedroom for the night on November 5, 1986, and, shortly thereafter, defendant entered the victim's bedroom, locked the door and committed acts which constitute child molestation. Defendant then forced the victim from her bedroom to his automobile, which was parked behind the house, and committed acts which constitute rape. The next day, the victim told her mother what had happened and the victim was taken to the hospital where a physical examination revealed that she was subjected to violent sexual intercourse within a 24 to 36-hour period. From this and other evidence adduced at trial, defendant was found guilty of child molestation, enticing a child for indecent purposes and rape.
Defendant's trial attorney was allowed to withdraw by the trial court and another attorney was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. Appellate counsel filed this appeal and subsequently submitted an enumeration of error and brief. As an addendum to his appeal, defendant filed, pro se, documents wherein he asserts error. Held:
1. Defendant first contends the trial court erred in applying OCGA § 24-2-3, Georgia's Rape Shield statute, by limiting his cross-examination of the victim and his direct examination of the victim's father and brother. More specifically, defendant complains that he was not permitted to inquire of these witnesses regarding "possible false prior accusations of sexual misconduct ..." made by the victim against her father and brother.
During defense counsel's cross-examination of the victim, the following transpired: Thereafter, the trial court overruled the State's objection and instructed defendant's attorney to "confine [his inquiry,] without any elaboration, [to] whether or not [the victim] has told another person or persons that things have happened to her when, in fact, they have not happened." Defense counsel agreed and, without exception, he pursued this line of inquiry with the victim and later with the victim's father and brother. The victim denied she made any such accusations. The victim's brother affirmed that the victim had not "made certain accusations against [him] in the past." The victim's father testified that the victim had "made false accusations against [him]."
Under these circumstances, we find that defendant is not entitled to relief under this enumeration of error since the trial court overruled the State's objection and defense counsel did not object to the limited line of inquiry he was permitted. " Sanders v. State, 181 Ga.App. 117(2), 120, 351 S.E.2d 666. In the case sub judice, defendant's attorney not only acquiesced by not objecting to the trial court's ruling, after the trial court instructed defendant's attorney as to the permissible line of inquiry, he stated: "That's exactly what I want to do, Your Honor." 1
2. Defendant, in his pro se submission, contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. Midura v. State, 183 Ga.App. 523, 524(3), 359 S.E.2d 416. Consequently, this case must be remanded to the trial court for a hearing and for appropriate findings concerning only the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. Should further review of the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel be necessary, the appropriate appellate procedure shall be followed for such review. See Martin v. State, 185 Ga.App. 145, 146(3)(a), 363 S.E.2d 765.
3. A liberal reading of defendant's pro se brief indicates that he challenges the jury's verdict based on the general grounds.
"A person commits the offense of child molestation when he 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." OCGA § 16-6-4(a).
"A person commits the offense of enticing a child for indecent purposes when he solicits, entices, or takes any child under the age of 14 to any place whatsoever for the purpose of child molestation or indecent acts." OCGA § 16-6-5(a). This crime includes the element of asportation. Dennis v. State, 158 Ga.App. 142(2), 279 S.E.2d 275.
OCGA § 16-6-1(a).
In the case sub judice, the victim testified that defendant entered her room while she was in bed, solicited sexual activity, sodomized her and raped her. She also testified that defendant took her from her room to his vehicle outside the house and there he raped her, forcibly and against her will. This testimony was corroborated by medical evidence which indicated that the victim had been forcibly raped within 24 to 36 hours of her physical examination. This and other evidence adduced at trial was more than sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses of child molestation, enticing a child for indecent purposes and rape. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560.
4. Next, defendant challenges pro se the trial court's order that he pay restitution "for the necessary psychotherapy treatment and counselling rendered to [the victim] arising out of the incidents from which these charges arose."
" Patterson v. State, 161 Ga.App. 85, 86(5), 289 S.E.2d 270. In the absence of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Earnest v. State
...349 S.E.2d 228 (1986). "Acquiescence completely deprives [Appellant] of the right to complain further." Thompson v. State, 186 Ga.App. 471, 472, 367 S.E.2d 320, 322 (1986) (quoting Upshaw v. Cooper, 127 Ga.App. 690, 692, 194 S.E.2d 618, 619 4. As the State was about to rest its case, the ju......
-
Bentley-Kessinger, Inc. v. Jones
... ... See Whisnant v. State, 178 Ga.App. 742, 743(1), 344 S.E.2d 536 (1986); Hiley v. McGoogan, 177 Ga.App. 809, 811, fn. 1, 341 S.E.2d 461 (1986). It further allows us to ... ...
-
McKibbons v. State, A94A2796
...invoked no additional ruling. " 'Acquiescence completely deprives [defendant] of the right to complain further.' Thompson v. State, 186 Ga.App. 471, 472 (367 SE2d 320) (1988) (quoting Upshaw v. Cooper, 127 Ga.App. 690, 692 (194 SE2d 618) (1972))." Earnest v. State, 262 Ga. 494, 496(3), 422 ......
-
Carver v. State
...on the bases that the State failed to comply with the dictates of OCGA §§ 40-14-5; 40-14-7; and 40-14-9. See Thompson v. State, 186 Ga.App. 471(2), 367 S.E.2d 320 (1988) (in which a majority of this court determined what enumerations of error were before this court from a liberal reading of......