Toles v. State, A91A1995

Decision Date12 February 1992
Docket NumberNo. A91A1995,A91A1995
Citation415 S.E.2d 531,202 Ga.App. 815
PartiesTOLES v. The STATE.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Robert L. Ferguson, Jonesboro, for appellant.

Robert E. Keller, Dist. Atty., Daniel J. Cahill, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

CARLEY, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of aggravated child molestation. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury's verdict of guilt.

1. "There is no requirement that the testimony of the victim of [aggravated] child molestation be corroborated. [Cit.] Nevertheless, the testimony of the victim in this case was corroborated in several material respects. From all of the evidence, the jury was authorized to find that appellant had committed an immoral or indecent act to the person of the child ... with the intent to arouse his sexual desires ... [and] that the commission of the act of molestation was accomplished by the use of such force as to have resulted in physical injury to the child. [Cit.]" Adams v. State, 186 Ga.App. 599(1), 367 S.E.2d 871 (1988). A rational trier of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence adduced at trial proof of appellant's guilt of aggravated child molestation beyond a reasonable doubt. Adams v. State, supra; Keeler v. State, 181 Ga.App. 208(1), 351 S.E.2d 731 (1986).

2. Over appellant's hearsay objection, a witness was permitted to relate a statement made to her by the victim. "The record reflects that the trial court found sufficient indicia of reliability from the circumstances of the [statement]. The victim herself testified at trial and was cross-examined. The trial court did not err in admitting [this testimony] over appellant's hearsay objection. [Cits.]" Fitzgerald v. State, 193 Ga.App. 76, 77(5), 386 S.E.2d 914 (1989). See OCGA § 24-3-16.

3. The evidence authorized a finding that appellant was guilty only of aggravated child molestation. However, the trial court did not, as appellant contends, erroneously charge on child molestation as a lesser included offense. The record clearly shows that the trial court merely defined child molestation in connection with its charge on the elements of aggravated child molestation. Since child molestation is an element of aggravated child molestation, defining child molestation for the jury was obviously correct. Moreover, even if the trial court had given a charge on child molestation as a lesser included offense, the error...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Bryson v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 26 Octubre 1993
    ...showed that Bryson molested the children with such force as to have resulted in physical injury to the children. Toles v. State, 202 Ga.App. 815(1), 415 S.E.2d 531 (1992). See also OCGA § 16-6-4; Adams v. State, 186 Ga.App. 599(1), 367 S.E.2d 871 (1988). Accordingly, the trial court's instr......
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 12 Mayo 1997
    ...no requirement that the testimony of the victim of child molestation or aggravated child molestation be corroborated. Toles v. State, 202 Ga.App. 815(1), 415 S.E.2d 531; Saunders v. State, 195 Ga.App. 810(1), 395 S.E.2d 53; Fitzgerald v. State, 193 Ga.App. 76(2), 386 S.E.2d 914. Nevertheles......
  • Osborne v. State, A99A1408.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 23 Julio 1999
    ...child molestation need not be corroborated. Turner v. State, 223 Ga.App. at 449 (1)(b), 477 S.E.2d 847, supra; Toles v. State, 202 Ga.App. 815(1), 415 S.E.2d 531; Saunders v. State, 195 Ga.App. 810(1), 395 S.E.2d 53; Fitzgerald v. State, 193 Ga.App. 76(2), 386 S.E.2d 914. Nevertheless, L.T.......
  • Robinson v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 11 Septiembre 2000
    ...of the victim's desires rather than his own. However, the giving of this definitional charge was proper, see Toles v. State, 202 Ga.App. 815(3), 415 S.E.2d 531 (1992), and there could be no error since appellant was not indicted on a charge of child molestation or convicted thereof and was ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT