FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, RA Y and RI CKM A N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

June 8, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A0 23 5 . M A RROQUIN v . THE STATE.

M C F A D D E N , Pres id i n g J u d g e.

W i l m er Pi n t o Marro qu i n ap p eal s fro m h i s co n v i ct i o n fo r ag g rav at ed s ex u al

b at t ery

. W e fi n d n o m eri t i n ei t h er h i s ch al l en ge t o t h e s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce o r

h i s as s ert i o n t h at t h e t ri al co urt ab u s ed h i s di s cret io n i n ad m it ti n g a ph o t o g rap h o f t h e

v i ct i m i n to ev id en ce. So we affi rm

.

1

. S u f f ici en cy o f t h e evi d en ce.

“ On ap p eal fro m a cri m i n al co n v i ct i o n , we v i ew t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l ig h t m o s t

fav o rab l e to t h e v erd i ct

, w i t h t h e d efen d an t n o l o n g er en jo y i n g a p res u m

p t i o n o f

i n n o cen ce.” Rees e v. S t a t e , 2 7 0 Ga. Ap p . 5 2 2, 5 2 3 (6 0 7 SE2 d 1 65 ) (2 0 0 4) (ci t at i o n

o m it t ed ). W e n ei t h er wei g h t h e ev id en ce n o r j u d ge t h e cred i b i l i t y o f wi t n es s es , b ut

d et erm i n e o n l y wh et her, aft er v i ewi n g t h e ev i den ce in t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h ep ro s ecu ti o n , “ an y rat i o n al t ri er o f fact co u ld hav e fo u n d t h e es s en t i al el em en t s o f t h e

cri m e b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t .” Ja cks o n v. Vi r g i n i a , 4 4 3 U. S. 3 0 7, 3 19 (III) (B)

(9 9 SCt 2 7 81 , 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ) (ci t at i o n an d em p h as i s o m i t t ed ).

So v iewed

, t he ev id en ce s h o wed t h at o n a m o rn in g i n J an u ary 2 01 4

, n i n e-y earo l d H. A. was as leep i n a bed wi t h her m o th er an d t wo s i b l i n g s

. M arro q ui n, wh o was

H. A.’ s m o t h er’ s b o y fri en d, was as l eep at t h e fo o t of t h e b ed

. A ft er H. A.’ s m o t h er g ot

o u t o f bed an d l eft t h e ro o m , M arro q u in m o v ed s o t h at h e was l y i n g u n d er t h e co v ers

n ex t t o H

. A., faci n g h er back

. M arro q u i n reach ed aro u n d H. A.’ s b o d y , p ut h i s h an d

d o wn h er u n d erwear, an d i n s ert ed a fi n g er i n h er v ag i na. H. A. p u s h ed M arro q u i n ’ s

h an d away , an d he t o l d h er n ot t o t el l h er m o t h er. M arro q u i n g ot o ut o f b ed an d l eft

.

H. A. th en t o ld h er m o t her w h at h ad hap p en ed

. H. A.’ s m o t h er co n fro n t ed M arro q u i n,

wh o t ol d h er h e h ad m is t ak en H. A. fo r h er.

“ A p ers o n c o m

m i t s t h e o ffen s e o f ag g rav at ed s ex u al b at t ery wh en h e o r s h e

i n t en t i o n a l l y p en et rat es wi th a fo rei g n o bject t h e s ex u al o rg an o r an us o f an o t h er

p ers o n wi t ho u t t h e co n s en t of t h at p ers o n .” O CGA § 1 6 -6

- 2 2

. 2 (b ). “ [A] fi n g er

co n st i t u t es a ‘ fo rei gn o b

ject ’ fo r p urp o s es o f t h i s cri m e.” Jo h n so n v. S t a t e , 2 7 6 Ga.

5 7 , 5 8 (1 ) (5 7 3 SE2 d 3 6 2 ) (2 0 02 ) (ci t at i on o m i t t ed ). See OCGA § 1 6 -6 -2 2 .2 (a).

2Al t h ou g h M arro q u in d o es no t d i s p u t e t h at h e p en et rat ed H. A.’ s sex u al o rg an

wi t h h is fi n g er, h e as s ert s t h at h e m i s t o ok H. A. fo r h er m o th er, hi s g i rl fri en d, an d s o

t h ere was i n s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce o f hi s cri m i n al i n t en t

. “ O n t h e i s s ue o f i n t en t

, t h e

[s ] t at e m u s t p ro v e t h at th e d efen d an t ’ s act o f p en et rat i n g t h e v i ct i m ’ s sex u al o rg an o r

an u s was i nt en t i o n al an d t h at t h e d efen d an t k n ew o r s h o u l d h av e k n o wn t h at t h e

v i ct i m d i d n ot co n s en t o r lack ed t h e cap aci t y t o co n s en t .” Lee v. S t a te

, 3 0 0 G a. Ap p.

2 1 4

, 2 16 (1 ) (6 8 4 SE2 d 3 4 8 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (ci t at i o ns o m i t ted ). M arro q u i n arg u es t h at t h e

s t at e d i d n o t m eet t hi s b urd en b ecau s e i t “ o ffered n o ev i d en ce to n eg at e o r d i s p ro v e

b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d ou b t t h at [h i s ] act i on s were s o m et h in g o th er th an a m i s t ak e.”

We d i s ag ree. Th e s tat e pres en t ed ev i den ce d es cri bi ng t h e ph y s i cal d i ffer e n c e s

b et ween n i n e-y ear-o l d H. A. an d h er ad u l t m o t her i n J an u ary 2 0 14

. In ad d it i o n , t h e

s t at e p res en t ed ev i d en ce t h at Marro q ui n t o ld H. A. n o t t o t e l l h er m o t h er ab o u t h i s

act i on s b ef

o r e H. A

. p u s hed h i s h an d away fro m her. Fro m t h is ev i d en ce, t he ju ry was

au t h o ri zed t o fi n d t h at M a r ro q u i n i n t en ded t o p erp et rat e h i s act s o n H. A., n o t h er

m o th er. T h e ev i d en ce s u p p o rt ed M arro q ui n ’ s co n v i c t i o n fo r ag g rav at ed s ex u al

b at t ery

.

2

. Ad mi ss i o n o f vi ct i m’s p h o t o g r a

ph

.

3Ov er M arro q u i n ’ s o bject i o n , t h e t ri a l co u rt ad m i tt ed i n t o ev i d en ce a s ch o ol

p h o t o g rap h o f H

. A. t ak en ap p ro xi m at el y ei g h t m o nt h s b efo re J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4.

M arro q u i n arg u es t h at th i s was erro r b ecau s e t h e p h o t o g rap h’ s “ p ro b at i v e v al u e was

s u b s t an t i al l y o u t wei g h ed b y th e d an g er o f u n fai r p reju di ce[.] ” OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3.

W h et h er t o ex cl u d e ev i d en ce o n t h i s g ro u n d

i s a m at t er co m

m i tt ed p ri n ci p al l y t o t he d i s cret io n o f th e t ri al co u rt [.

M o r e o v e r , ] t h e ex cl u s io n o f ev i d en ce u n d er OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 i s an

ex t rao rd i n ary rem ed y wh i ch s h o u l d b e u s ed o n l y s pari n g l y . Th e m ajo r

fu n ct i o n of OCGA § 24 -4 -4 03 i s t o ex cl u d e m at t er o f s can t o r

cu m u lat i v e p ro b a t i v e f

o rce, d rag g ed i n b y t he h eel s fo r th e s ak e o f i t s

p reju d i ci al effect

. In cl o s e cas es , t h e b al an ce sh o ul d b e s t ru ck i n fav o r

o f ad m i s s i b i li t y

.

Di xo n v. S t a t e , 3 4 1 Ga. Ap p. 2 5 5

, 2 6 0 (1 ) (b ) (8 0 0 SE2 d 1 1 ) (2 0 1 7 ) (ci t at i o n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

Th e ph o t o g rap h at i s su e h ad p ro bat i ve v al u e

— i t t en ded t o s ho w t h at aro u n d

J an u ary 2 0 1 4 H. A. l o o k ed l ik e a ch i l d

, no t an ad ul t

, t h ereb y m ak in g M arro q u i n ’ s

cl ai m t h at he m i s t o o k H. A. fo r h er m o t h er l es s p ro b ab l e. See g en eral l y D i xo n , s u p ra

at 2 6 1 (1 ) (b ) (d i s cu s s i n g co n cep ts o f rel ev an ce an d p ro bat i v e v al u e). Al t h o u g h t h e

p h o t o g rap h was t ak en s ev eral m o n th s earl i er, t here was ev i d en ce th at H. A.’ s

ap p earan ce i n Jan uary 2 0 1 4 di d n o t d i ffer m ark ed l y fro m t h e p h o t o grap h

. Bu t t h ere

4was ev i d en ce t h at H

. A.’ s ap pearan ce h a d ch an g ed b etw e en t h e J an uary 2 0 1 4 i n ci d en t

an d t h e No v em

ber 2 0 1 5 t ri al at wh i ch s h e t es t i fi ed

.

W e are n o t p ers u ad ed b y M arro q u in ’ s as s ert i on t h at t h e pro b at i v e v al u e o f t h e

p h o t o g rap h was o ut wei g h ed b y a d an g er o f u n fai r preju d ice fro m i t

. M arro q u i n ci t es

t o o u r Su p rem e Co urt ’s o p i n i o n i n R a g a n v. S t a t e , 2 9 9 Ga. 8 2 8, 8 3 2 -8 3 4 (3 ) (7 9 2

SE2 d 3 42 ) (2 0 1 6 ), wh i ch co n cern ed t h e p reju d i ci al n at u re o f t h e ad m is s i o n o f s ev eral

“ i n -l i fe” p h o t o g rap h s o f a m u rd er v i ct i m t hat t h e Co urt fo u nd h ad li t tl e i f an y

p r o b at iv e v al u e. Here, i n co nt ras t, t h e p h o t o g rap h di rect l y p ert ai n ed t o a cri t i cal

,

d i s p u t ed i s s u e

— t he b el i ev ab i l i t y o f M arro qu i n ’ s affi rm at i v e d efen s e. W e fi n d n o

ab u se o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d i s cret i o n i n ad m i t t i n g t h e p h ot o g rap h

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Ra y a n d Ri ckma n , JJ., co ncu r

.

5