White v. State
Decision Date | 04 February 2019 |
Docket Number | S18G0365 |
Citation | 305 Ga. 111,823 S.E.2d 794 |
Parties | WHITE v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Andrew Santos Fleischman, Noah Howard Pines, ROSS & PINES, LLC, 5555 Glenridge Connector, Suite 435, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, for Appellant.
Layla Hinton Zon, District Attorney, ALCOVY JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, 1132 Usher Street, N.W., Suite 313, Covington, Georgia 30014, for Appellee.
This case concerns the proper statutory interpretation of OCGA § 24-4-412, Georgia’s Rape Shield Statute, which provides:
(Emphasis supplied).
In this case, on November 21, 2014, Charles White was found guilty of three counts of rape, one count of statutory rape, ten counts of child molestation, three counts of aggravated sodomy, three counts of incest, and one count of enticing a child for indecent purposes in connection with incidents involving three victims, including S.M., who was a member of White’s extended family. The information that led to White’s indictment for these sex crimes came to light after twelve-year-old S.M. had been accused of, and later admitted to, molesting her two younger stepsisters.1 During the course of being questioned about her own sexual misconduct, S.M. disclosed that she had been sexually abused by White since she was five years old and that White had done things to her that were similar to the things that she had done to her stepsisters. Prior to White’s trial, S.M. was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court for having committed sexual batteries against her two stepsisters.
White filed a pretrial motion in limine to have evidence of S.M.’s prior sexual acts excluded from his trial, arguing that the admission of the evidence would have been more prejudicial to White than probative of any issue at trial. But the trial court denied White’s motion, and, at trial, without further objection from White’s counsel, the State briefly elicited testimony from S.M. regarding her prior sexual misconduct and her delinquency adjudication. The State also presented expert testimony in which the expert noted briefly that, in general, young children who act sexually toward other children may be exhibiting behavior consistent with having been victims of sexual abuse. In addition to this evidence, White’s other two victims testified directly about the abuse that they claimed that they had been subjected to by White, and the family members to whom the victims had spoken about the abuse testified as well.
Following his convictions, White filed a motion for new trial on November 25, 2014, which he amended on September 19, 2016, arguing for the first time that the trial court committed plain error2 by admitting into evidence at trial testimony regarding S.M.’s sexual history — specifically, her sexual misconduct — in violation of Georgia’s Rape Shield Statute. The trial court denied the motion, and White appealed to the Court of Appeals, continuing to argue that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of S.M.’s prior sexual misconduct. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed White’s convictions in an unpublished opinion, finding that Georgia’s Rape Shield Statute could not be invoked by a defendant to prevent a victim from offering evidence that was otherwise relevant to the case. In light of this ruling from the Court of Appeals, we granted White’s petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve the following questions:
For the reasons set forth below, we determine that (1) yes, a defendant can invoke the Rape Shield Statute to prohibit the admission of evidence of a witness’s past sexual behavior offered by the State where such offered evidence is inadmissible pursuant to the terms of the Rape Shield Statute; (2) no, because evidence of a complaining witness’s past sexual behavior is only admissible under the Rape Shield Statute if that evidence is relevant to the issue of consent; and (3) the trial court did improperly admit evidence of the complaining witness’s past sexual behavior in this case, but the admission of this evidence did not amount to plain error requiring reversal of White’s convictions. Accordingly, we ultimately affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, though we reject the Court of Appeals’ reasoning.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170, 173 (1) (a), 751 S.E.2d 337 (2013).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC
...in concluding that Perry was not acting "under color of employment" at the time that he injured Smith. See, e.g., White v. State , 305 Ga. 111, 114, 823 S.E.2d 794 (2019) (affirming judgment of Court of Appeals, but rejecting the court's reasoning).19 Judgments affirmed.All the Justices con......
-
Evans v. State
...language providing that specific intent to violate the law is an element of a RICO conspiracy. See generally White v. State , 305 Ga. 111, 114-115 (1), (823 S.E.2d 794) (2019) (we afford statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning); Patterson v. State , 299 Ga. 491, 495, (789 S.E.2d 1......
-
Schoicket v. State
......See OCGA § 16-10-94 (a), (c) ; see also Byers v. State , 311 Ga. 259, 268 (3), 857 S.E.2d 447 (2021) ("A person who tampers with evidence of [her] own crime is guilty of only a misdemeanor."); White v. State , 287 Ga. 713, 717 (1) (d), 699 S.E.2d 291 (2010) (felony sentence is permitted only when a person tampers with evidence involving apprehension or prosecution of a person other than himself). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence on Count 7 and remand for resentencing on it. Judgment ......
-
Vallejo v. State
...acts, it was inadmissible unless it fell within one of the limited exceptions in the Rape Shield Statute. See White v. State , 305 Ga. 111, 118 (2), 823 S.E.2d 794 (2019) (no relevance exception to Rape Shield Statute). On appeal, Vallejo has not established that any exception to the Rape S......