Willis v. State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A91A1039,A91A1039 |
| Citation | Willis v. State, 410 S.E.2d 827, 201 Ga.App. 365 (Ga. App. 1991) |
| Parties | WILLIS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Donald E. Strickland, Albany, for appellant.
Britt R. Priddy, Dist. Atty., Johnnie M. Graham, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Durwood Flurry Willis III was indicted on three counts of child molestation. The trial court granted his motion to sever the three counts for trial. The jury found Willis guilty of count three, and he appeals.
1. Appellant enumerates the general grounds. At trial, the State adduced evidence that the seven-year-old victim and her family were attending a fish fry held by appellant at his place of business. Clarence King testified that he saw appellant holding the victim's hand behind a store next to appellant's business; that the victim was tugging at her pants and was shaking; and that the victim caught his hand as soon as she came near him. Pursuant to the Child Hearsay statute, OCGA § 24-3-16, the victim's mother testified that when she left the fish fry to buy beer the victim was playing pinball with appellant, and that upon her return, the victim who was pale and shaking, came running to her while holding King's hand and trying to fasten her unzipped pants. The victim told her mother that appellant had put his hands on her vagina and breasts. The victim then began screaming and crying in fear, due to threats appellant had made that he would kill her and her family if she told about the molestation. A police sergeant and the nurse who examined the victim both testified that the victim had stated that appellant had unzipped her pants and put his finger "inside of her." On cross-examination the nurse testified that the doctor who examined the victim found some redness and irritation around the victim's genitals.
We find there was sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of the offense for which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Boynton v. State, 197 Ga.App. 149, 151(2), 397 S.E.2d 615 (1990).
2. Appellant enumerates as error the admission as a similar crime or transaction of testimony by Julia Rhodus that appellant had molested her 11 years earlier. Rhodus testified that appellant was her stepfather from 1976 to 1989; that he forced her to submit to almost daily sexual intercourse for a nine-month period in 1979-1980, when she was 10 to 11 years old, until she went to live with her father; and that appellant threatened to kill her, her mother, and her brother if she told anyone about the molestation.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Leonard v. State, 197 Ga.App. 221, 223(2), 398 S.E.2d 250 (1990). Rhodus' testimony that appellant was the person who molested her satisfied the first condition. As to the second condition, (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Boynton, supra 197 Ga.App. at 150(1), 397 S.E.2d 615). Mere lapse of time between the commission of any prior similar crimes and the commission of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your Free Trial
-
Jones v. State
...but this charge was nolle prossed and therefore not before the jury. 10. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Willis v. State, 201 Ga.App. 365, 366(3), 410 S.E.2d 827 (1991); see Sparks v. State, 234 Ga.App. 11, 13(2), 505 S.E.2d 555 11. See Bohannon v. State, 208 Ga.App. 576, 581(3)(d), 431......
-
Harden v. State
...This evidence was properly admitted as a similar transaction. See Stephan v. State, 205 Ga.App. 241(2), 422 S.E.2d 25; Willis v. State, 201 Ga.App. 365(2), 410 S.E.2d 827. The mere passage of time between the similar incidents in these circumstances does not lessen the validity of this evid......