THI RD DI VI SI ON DOYLE, P. J.

, HODGES and W

A TKI NS, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a ll y 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.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

M ay 9, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 51 8. EB ERSOLE v

. TH E STA TE.

W A T K I N S , J u d ge.

A j u ry f o u nd J o hnny L

. Eberso le gu ilty o f c riminal attemp t to c o m mit rap e and

tw o c o u nts o f aggrav ated assau lt. 1 Eberso le a p p eals f o llo w ing the d enial o f his mo tio n

f o r new trial. H e argu es that the trial c o u rt erred fo r ad m itting his p rio r c o nv ic tio n f o r

c hild mo lestatio n, f

o r o verru ling his o bj ec tio n to the State’ s mentio n of the c h i l d

v ic tim’ s age when the same w a s no t in ev id e nc e, f or f ailing to grant a m istrial w hen the

Stat e imp ro perly c o mmented o n the exerc ise of his right t o r emain silent d u ring

c lo sing, and f

o r a d mitting p rej u d ic ial ev id e nc e o f his interest in taro t c ard s a nd “ the

1 See OCGA § § 1 6 -4- 1 ; 1 6

- 6

- 1 (a) (1 ); 1 6 -5- 21 (a) (1 ), (3).d ev il. ” H e also c o ntend s that the c u mu lativ e ef f ec t o f these erro rs w arrant a new trial.

Fo r the reaso ns set f

o rth belo w , w e af

f irm.

On a p p eal f

ro m a c riminal co nv ic tio n, w e v iew t he ev id enc e in the
light mo st f

av orable to the j u ry’ s v erd ic t, w ith t he d ef end ant no l o nger enj o ying a p r e su mp tio n o f inno c enc e. We n e i t h e r w e igh the ev id enc e no r

d etermine w itness c red ibility, w hic h a re t a sk s that f all w ithin the

exc lu siv e p ro v inc e o f the j u ry, bu t o nly d etermine if the ev i d e n c e w as

su f f ic ient f or a ratio nal trier o f f

a c t to find the d ef

end ant gu ilty o f the

c harged o f

f e nse beyo nd a reaso nable d o u bt. 2

So v iew ed

, the ev id enc e sho w s that Eber s o l e a n d the vic tim had been in a

ro mantic relatio nship f

o r a f ew w eek s as o f Sep t ember 2020. The v ic tim d id no t hav e

a s table r esid enc e at the time, so she w o u ld o f ten c ome to Eberso le’ s ho me and sleep

in his ro o m w ith him. On o c c a sio n the v ic tim had c o nsensu a l s ex w ith Eberso le in his

ro o m. On the night o f Sep tember 22, 2020, the v ic tim w ent to Eberso le’ s ho me w ith

a beer he had requ ested and E b e r s o l e w armed her u p a p late o f f oo d. The p air w ent

into Eberso l e’ s ro o m w here Eberso le b ec a me aggressiv e. Eberso le d emand ed the

v ic tim hav e sex w ith him and w anted her to tak e of f her c lo thes. T he v ic t im resp o nd ed

that she w as no t interested in sex and that she j u s t w anted to finish her meal and lie

2 (Citatio ns o mitted

. ) Alli

s o n v

. S ta te , 356 Ga. A p p

. 256 (846 SE2d 222) (2020).

2d o w n. Eberso le w a s u p set the v ic tim w o u ld no t hav e sex with him, so he to ld her to

leav e

. T he v ic tim w ent ou tsid e to her c a r, b u t Eberso le f o llo w e d her and to ld her to

c o me bac k insid e

.

Onc e the v ic tim w as bac k in Eberso le’ s r o o m his d emeano r c hanged

. H e again

to ld her to tak e her clo thes o f f a nd again s he ref

u sed

. H e to ld her mu ltip le times that

he w a s “ the d ev il. ” Eberso le c ontinu ed t o d emand sex while the vic tim ref used

, and

he ev entu ally p u shed her do w n o nto his bed

. Eberso le then mad e the v ic tim tak e her

c lo thes of f

, and he held her do w n and cho k e d her by p u tting his hand s a ro u nd her

thro at. The v ic tim f

elt d iz z y lik e she w as go ing to p ass o u t. Eberso le attemp t e d to p u t

his p e nis insid e her vagina, bu t it d id no t go all the w a y insid e. Eberso le again said that

he was “ the d ev il” and that he w o u l d k i ll her. Eberso le began c hanting things and

“ s o und ed lik e a d emo nic so m ething. ” The c hanting w as in a langu age t he v ic tim had

nev er heard bef

o r e

. E v e n tu ally Eberso le to ld the v ic tim to “ ju st f *c k ing leav e” and

she go t d r essed and w ent c rying to her c ar.

The v ic t i m d i d no t c a ll 9 1 1
, bu t o f f ic ers arriv e d o n the sc ene. A fter being

arrested

, E b e r so le to ld an o f f ic er “ I c u rse y o u b eyo nd measu re. ” H e also sc reamed

3and s tarted sp eak ing in a strange langu age. W ithin the strange langu age Eberso le can

be heard saying “ Satan” and “ Lu c if er. ”

The v ic tim d id no t hav e anyw h e r e t o stay that night, so Eberso le’ s mo ther,

ano ther resid ent o f the ho u se, inv ited the v ic t im to stay t he night in Eberso le’ s ro o m.

The v ic tim lay in Eberso le’ s bed , bu t she c o u ld no t sleep

.

A s a resu lt o f this ev ent, Eberso le was ind ic ted fo r c riminal attemp t to c o mmit

rap e, aggrav ated assau l t f o r assau lting the v ic tim w hile trying to rap e her, and

aggrav ated a ssau lt f

o r s trangling the vic tim. D u r ing the trial of t h e c ase, o v er

Eberso le’ s o b j ec tio n, the State intro d u c ed into ev id enc e a c o p y o f a p r io r ind ic tment

f o r c hild mo lestatio n. The p a rties s tip u lated that the p rio r c ase had been reso lv ed w ith

an Alfo rd

3 p lea and that Eberso le had been sentenc ed in t h a t c a s e. The j u r y f o u nd

Eberso le gu ilty of all three c o u nts. Eberso le mo v ed fo r a new trial, w hic h w as d enied

,

and this ap p eal f

o llo w ed

.

1

. I n three c laims o f erro r, Eber s o l e c o n t e n d s that the t r ial c o u rt erred in

ad mitting ev id enc e o f his p rio r c o nv ic tio n f o r c hild mo lestatio n. W e d isagree.

3 See N o rth C aro li n a v

. A lfo rd

, 400 U. S. 25 (9 1 SCt 1 6 0, 27 LEd 2d 1 6 2) (1 9 7 0).

4Ou r law is c lear that a “ t rial c o u r t ’ s ru lings o n the exc lu sio n o r a d missio n o f

ev id enc e are rev iew ed f

o r a c lear abu se o f

d isc retio n. ” 4 W ith this p rinc ip al in mind

,

w e tu r n to Eberso le’ s sp ec if ic c laims o f

erro r.

( a) C o mpli a nce wi th t he s ta tu to ry dea dli

n e to n o ti fy E b ers o le o f the S ta te’

s i n ten t to

i ntro d u ce a s i mi la r tra n s a cti

o n

Eberso le f irst c ontend s that the trial c o u rt abu sed its disc retio n in ad mitting the

similar transac tio n ev id enc e bec au se the State d id no t co mp ly w ith OCGA § 24- 4- 41 3

as it d id no t timely p ro d u c e inc id ent rep o rts o r statements o f the v ic tim f ro m the p rio r

c ase. OCGA § 24- 4- 41 3 5 p ro v id es, in relev ant p art:

(a) I n a c riminal p ro ceed ing in whic h the ac c used is a c c u sed o f an o f f ense

o f sexu al as s au lt, e v id enc e o f the ac c u sed ’ s c o mmissio n o f ano ther

o f f ense of sexu al assau lt shall be ad m issible and may be co nsid ered f o r its
bearing o n any matter to w hic h it is relev ant.

(b) I n a p ro c eed ing in w h i c h the p ro sec u tio n intend s to of f er ev id enc e

u nd er this Co d e sec tio n, the p ro sec uto r shall d isc lo se su c h ev id enc e to

the ac c u sed

, inc lu d ing statements o f witnesses o r a su m m a r y o f the

su bstanc e o f any tes t i m o n y that is exp ec ted to be o f f ered

, a t least ten

4 D a v i s v

. S ta te , 301 Ga. 39 7 , 39 9 (2) (801 SE2d 89 7 ) (201 7 )

.

5 The State d o es no t argu e that the ev id e nc e was ad missibl e p u rsu ant to any

o ther statu te, so o u r analysis herein is limited to OCGA § 24- 4- 41 3.

5d a ys i n a d v anc e o f trial, u nless the time is sho rtened o r lengthe n e d o r

p retrial no tic e is exc u sed by the j u d ge u p o n go o d c au se sho w n.

H ere, the State p r o v id ed a no tic e of intent to p resent ev id enc e o f the p rio r

similar transac tio n on Febru ary 25, 2022. I n that no tic e , the State id e ntif ied the p rio r

c o nv ic tio n f

o r c hild m olestatio n and attac hed the ind ic tment f o r the p rio r c ase to its

no tic e. The State said that it intend ed to p ro v e the p r i o r t r a nsac t io n thro u gh the

testimo n y o f t h e c hild v ic tim in t hat c a se. On A p ril 1 5, 2022, Eberso le mo v ed to

exc lu d e the e v id e nc e o f the p rio r child mo lestatio n o n the g r o u n d s t hat it w as

irrelev a nt and that the State had no t c omp lied w ith the no t ic e requ irement o f OCGA

§ 24- 4- 41 3. Sp ec if

ic ally, Eberso le c o ntend ed that a n inc id ent rep o r t c o n c erning the

c hild mo lestatio n had been p ro v id ed that d ay, w hic h w as o nly three d ays in ad v a nc e

o f the t rial. The p a rties argu ed the ad missibility o f the c o nv ic t io n bef o re t he start o f

the trial, and the trial c o u rt ru led that ev id enc e o f the similar t ransac tio n w o u ld be

ad missible. A l t h o u g h Eberso le maintained his o bj ec tio n to the ad missibility o f the

ev id enc e, the parties stip ulated that the p rio r c harge had been re s o l v e d t h ro u gh an

Alfo rd p lea and that Eberso le had been sentenc ed o n the c harge.

6H ere, as o u tlin e d abo v e, the State timely no tif ied Eberso le o f its intent to

intro d u c e ev id enc e o f the p r io r c hild mo lestatio n c o nv ic tio n a nd at ta c h e d a c o p y o f

the ind ic t ment to the no tic e. A ltho u gh no statements, rep o rts, or o t h er do c u ments

w ere timely p ro v id e d

, the o nly ev id enc e u ltimately ad mitt e d a b o u t t he c hild

mo lestatio n w as the timely p ro v id ed ind i c tm e n t and the p arties’ stip u latio n

c o nc e rning the p lea and s entenc ing. A c c o rd ingly, the o nly ev id enc e p resented to the

j u ry w as w hat had been p ro v id e d to Eberso le mo re than ten d ays bef o re trial, and thu s

the trial c o u rt d id no t abu s e its d isc r etio n. 6

( b) Relev a n ce o

f pri o r c hi ld mo les ta ti

o n

Eberso le c o ntend s t h a t t h e ev id e nc e o f the p rio r c hild mo lestatio n w as

irrelev a nt and u nd u ly p rej u d ic ial and , thu s , sho u ld no t hav e been ad mitted

.

A t the o u tset, w e rec o gniz e that OCGA § 24- 4- 41 3 is “ a r u le o f inc lu sio n, w ith

a s tro ng p resu mp tio n in f

av o r o f ad missibility, and p ro v ing a p ro pensity to c o mmit sex

6 The p artial relianc e by the State and the trial co u rt o n Eberso le’ s p re- existing

k no w led ge o f h i s c o n v ic tio n as a b asis f or a d mitting the ev id enc e, ho w ev er, is imp ro p er. Presu mably, mo st c riminal d ef end ants are aw are of p r io r ac c u satio ns of o r

c o nv ic tio ns f

o r sexu al assau lt a g a i nst them; no netheless, OCGA § 24- 4- 41 3 states that

“ t he pro sec u to r shall d isc lo s e su c h ev id enc e to t h e a c c u s e d ” at least t e n d ays in

ad v anc e o f

trial.

7c rimes o r an inap p r o p riately lu stf u l disp o sitio n are legally permissible p u rp o ses f o r

ad mitting ev id enc e o f this so rt. ” 7

W ith regard to the relev anc e o f the p rio r c hild mo lestatio n c o nv ic tio n, Eberso le

c o ntend s that the c rime of mo lestatio n is to o d issimilar to the c r ime o f attemp ted rap e

t o b e r e l e v a nt, largely d u e to the age d if f erenc e betw een the vic tims. “ Ev id enc e is

relev ant if it has ‘ a n

y ten den cy ’ t o p ro v e o r disp ro v e a fac t, w hereas the p ro b ativ e v alu e

o f ev id enc e d e riv es in large p art f ro m the extent to w hic h the e v id enc e tend s to mak e

the existenc e o f a f

a c t mo re o r less p ro bable. ” 8 Prio r c o mmissio n o f a sexu al assau lt

w as “ r elev a nt t o p ro v e [Eberso le’ s] intent and lu s tf u l d isp o sitio n in the cu rrent c ase,

and to d isp ro v e his c laim that the v ic tim’ s allegatio n o f [an attemp ted ] f o r c ed sexu al

enc o unter w as f

abric ated

. ” 9

7 (Citatio ns a n d p u n c t u atio n o m itted .) S ta te v

. Ippi sch

, 36 6 G a. A p p

. 501
, 502 (883 SE2d 1 6 2) (2023).

8 (Citatio n o mitted ; emp hasis in o riginal. ) McIv er v

. S ta te , 31 4 Ga. 1 09
, 1 45 (3) (87 5 SE2d 81 0) (2022).

9 Ro b i n so n v. S ta te , 3 4 2 G a

. A p p. 6 24, 6 35 (4) (a) (805 SE2d 1 03) (201 7 ) (ho ld ing t hat the trial c ou rt d id no t abu se its d isc retio n in p e rmitting ev id enc e o f p rio r attemp ted sexu al assau lt in a trial w here the d ef end ant w as c harged w ith aggrav ated

c hild mo lestatio n).

8A t the same time, in c onsid ering extrinsic ev id e nc e o f a no ther o f f ense,

the trial c o u rt mu st balanc e the relev anc e o f the ev id e nc e against its

p o tential to c au se unf

air p rej u d i c e t o the d ef

end ant. T his b alanc ing

requ ires a co mmo n sense assessment o f a ll t h e c irc umstanc es

su rro u nd ing the extrinsic o f f ense, inc lu ding p ro sec u t orial need

, o v erall
similarity betw een t h e e x t r i nsic ac t and the c harged o f f e nse, as w ell as

temp o ral remo teness

. On ap p eal, a trial co u rt’ s d ec isio n t o a dmit

ev id enc e o f

this natu re is rev iew ed o nly f o r abu se o f

d isc retio n. 1 0

Exc lu sio n p u rsu ant to OCGA § 24- 4- 403

is an extrao rd inary remed y — p artic u larly w hen the ev id enc e is alread y

stro ngly p resu med t o be ad missible. Exc lu sio n is a p p ro priate o nly w hen

the d emo nstrable p ro bativ e v alu e .

. . is s u b s ta n ti a lly o u tw eighed by the

d anger o f un

fa i r prej u d ic e. N o t j u st a little o u tw eighed

, b u t su bstantially.

A nd p rej u d ic e is no t “ u n f a i r ” s imp ly bec au se it tend s to inc u lp ate the

d e f end ant in an aw f

u l c rime. Rather, it is u nf air o nly if it creates a n

u nd u e tend enc y t o su ggest d ec isio n o n a n imp ro p er basi s s u c h as a n

emo t io nal o ne. Theref

o re, w hen a pp lying [OCGA § 24- 4- 403] b alanc ing

to ev id enc e of p rio r o f

f enses o f sexu al assau lt, t h e co u rt m u st t a k e into

ac c o u nt that su c h ev id enc e is natu r ally p rej ud ic ial. H o w ev er, generally,

it is no t u nf

a irly p r ej u d ic ial; rather it is prej u d ic ial f o r the same r easo n it

1 0 (Citatio ns and p u nc tu a tio n o mitted

. ) S ta te v

. Berri en , 36 4 Ga. A p p

. 21 7 , 225 (2) (87 4 SE2d 430) (2022).

9is p ro bativ e: it tend s to p ro v e the d ef end ant’ s p ro pensity to eng a g e in

sexu al assau lt. 1 1

W hen analyz ing the p ro bativ e v a lu e of a s imilar transac tio n, this Co u rt has held

that it “ dep end s o n tw o things: (1 ) the ne e d t o e s tablish t he f ac t fo r w hic h the

ev id enc e is o f

f e red

, w hic h in tu rn dep e nd s o n that f ac t’ s signif

ic anc e in the c ase and

w hether o r no t that f

ac t is d isp u ted

, and (2) the ‘ marginal w o rth’ o f the ev id enc e in

establishing the f

ac t, w hic h d ep end s o n w hat o ther ev id enc e is av ailable. ” 1 2

H ere, the State had a stro ng p ro sec u to rial need to e s tablish th a t t he v ic tim’ s

so mew hat biz arre ac co u nt – that Eberso le a tte m p ted to r ap e and strangle her w hile

c hanting abo u t “ th e d e v il”

– w as c red ible. “The c red ibility o f a witness is alw ays a

material f

ac t in i ss u e at a c riminal trial. ” 1 3 The marginal w o rth of the similar

transac tio n w as hi g h b e c a u s e there w ere no o ther w itnesses to w hat hap p ened in

Eberso le’ s bed ro o m and Eberso le’ s d ef ense w as to attac k the vic tim’ s c r ed ibility by

1 1 (Citatio ns and p u nc tu a tio n o mitted ; emp hasis i n o r i ginal. ) Ippi sch

, 36 6 Ga.

A p p

. at 504.

1 2 Berri en , 36 4 Ga. A p p

. at 226 (2) (b).

1 3 Ma rlo w v

. S ta te , 337 Ga. A pp

. 1
, 4 (1 ) (b) ( 785 SE2d 583) (201 6 )

, d isap p ro v ed

o f o n o ther gro u nd s by Qu i ller v

. S ta te , 338 Ga. A p p

. 206 (7 89 SE2d 39 1) (201 6 ).

10p resenting ev id enc e w hic h c o nf lic ted w ith her testimo ny. 1 4 Eberso le’ s mo ther and the

girlf riend o f Eberso le’ s bro ther, w ho w ere bo t h in the ho u se o n the night in qu estio n,

c o llec tiv ely testif

ied t hat Eberso le was a religio u s man w ho read t he B ible f requ ently,

that they d id no t hear any sc r eaming by the v ic tim thro u gh the thin w alls o f the ho u se,

t h at the v ic tim o nly lef

t t he ho u se o nc e instead o f tw ic e, and that t he vic tim to ld

Eberso le’ s mo t her “ I ’ m so so rry. I gu ess I ru ined yo u r so n’ s lif e” af ter Eberso le w as

arrested

. I n essenc e, Eberso le’ s d ef ense w as t hat the vic tim f

abric ated the allegatio ns

so she c o u ld hav e a p lac e to sleep that night a f t e r he kic k ed her o u t du e t o her ref u sal

to hav e sex w ith him. “ The State’ s extrinsic ev id enc e that [ Eberso le] had c o mmitted

a [p rio r] sexu al assau lt had the tend enc y to bo lster the c red ibility o f t h e v i c t im by

d emo nstrating that her c irc u mstanc es w ere no t u niqu e. ” 1 5

“ On the o ther s id e o f the led ger, the risk o f u nf air p rej u d ic e f

r o m t his ev id enc e

is relativ ely lo w

. ” 1 6 The only ev id enc e pro v id ed to the j u ry w as the ind ic tment and the

1 4 See Berri

en , 36 4 Ga. A p p

. a t 226 (2) (b) (“ H ere, the issu e of c o nsent is bo th

essential and d isp u ted

, so the need to establish this f ac t is stro ng. A nd the m ar g i nal

w o rth o f the o ther- ac t ev id enc e is hig h b e c a u se the o ther av ailable ev id enc e o n

c o nsent j u st p its the v ic tim’ s w o rd against [the d ef end ant’ s ]).

1 5 Ma rlo w , 337 Ga. A p p

. at 4 (1 ) (b).

1 6 (Pu nc t u atio n o mitted

. ) Berri en , 36 4 Ga. A p p

. at 227 (2) (b).

11stip u latio n c o nc erning the p lea and sentenc ing. T he j u ry heard no ev id enc e d etailing

the c hild mo lestatio n o ther than the langu age f ro m the ind ic tment that Eberso le

to uc hed the v aginal area a nd breasts o f a child

. They d id no t hear fro m the child v ic tim

p erso nally o r learn any f

u rther d etails abo u t what t ransp ired betw een Eberso le and the

c hild v ic tim. M o reo v er, the j u ry w as c harged that, thro ugh his Alfo rd p lea to the c hild

mo lestatio n c h a r g e , E b e r s o l e “p r o t e s t [ e d ] h i s i n no c enc e, bu t no netheless [p led ] gu ilty

by kno w ingly, v o lu ntari l y [

, ] and u nd erstand ingly c o nsenting to the imp o sitio n o f a

s entenc e. ” I nd eed

, learning t hat Eberso le was ac tu ally sentenc ed f o r the c h i l d

mo lestatio n minimiz ed t he p rej u d ic e o f the ev id e nc e bec au se it mad e “ it less lik ely

t h a t t h e j u r y w o u ld w ant t o p u nish [Eberso le] f or this p ast c o nd uc t rather than th e

c harged c rimes. ” 1 7 A c c ord ingly, w e ho ld that the t rial c o urt d i d n o t a b u se its

d isc r etio n in ad mitting this relev ant ev id enc e p u rsu a nt to OCGA § 24- 4- 41 3.

( c ) C o mpli a n ce wi th t

he C o n fro n t a ti o n C la u s e

I nitially, Eberso le mo v ed to exc lu d e the ad missio n o f e v id enc e c o nc e r ning the

c hild mo lestatio n c o nv ic tio n o n the gro u nd s that it was irrelev a nt, u nd u ly p rej u d ic ial,

and that the State d id no t giv e pro p er no tic e. Eberso le nev e r o bj ec ted to the ev id enc e

1 7 (Citatio n o mitted .) Bro o ks v

. S ta te , 36 5 G a. Ap p

. 7 1 1
, 7 25 (5) ( 880 SE2d 226 ) (2022).

12o n the basis that it vio lated the Co nf ro ntatio n Clau s e. A f

ter the State r ested

, Eberso le

mo v ed f o r a m istrial, w hic h w a s d enied

, o n the gro u nd t hat t he intro d u c tio n o f the

ev id enc e v io lated the Co nf ro ntatio n Clau se. This w a s t h e fi r s t m e n t i o n o f an argu ment

based o n the Co nf

ro ntatio n Clau se.

Eberso le’ s f

ailu re to mo v e f

o r a mistrial o n this gro u nd at the time the ev id enc e

w as intro d u c ed means the denial o f a mistrial is no t p reserv ed f o r ap p ellate rev i e w

.

“ T o ensu re ap p ellate rev iew o f the d enial of a mo tio n f o r mistrial, a d ef

end ant

generally mu st p reserv e the issu e a t trial. To d o that, the d ef end ant f irst mu st mak e

a mo tio n at the e arliest op po rtu nity in th e t r i a l c o u rt. ” 1 8 “ I f the d e f end a nt d id no t

mak e a c o ntemp o raneo us mo tio n f o r a mistrial at the time the d ef end a n t b ec ame

aw are o f the matter

giv ing rise to the mo tio n, then the d ef end ant has waiv ed rev iew

o f this issu e o n ap p eal. ” 1 9

1 8 (Citatio ns omitted

. ) Ba tes v

. S ta te , 31 7 Ga. 809
, 81 8 (3 ) ( b ) ( 8 9 6 SE2d 581 ) (2023).

1 9 (Citatio n a nd p u nc tu atio n omitted

. ) Tho ma s v

. S t a t e , 3 1 0 Ga. 57 9
, 581 (2) (853

SE2d 1 1 1 ) (2020).

13To the extent that Eberso le’ s c laim o f er r o r seek s to assert an ev id entiary

o bj ec tio n to the intro d u ctio n of the similar transac tio n based o n t h e C o nf r o ntatio n

Clau s e, Eberso le d id no t p reserv e o r d inary ap p ellate rev iew

.

I n o rd er to p reserv e an o bj ec tio n f o r ord inary ap p ellate rev iew

, the

s p eci fi c gro u nd o f the o bj ec tio n mu st be mad e at the time the c hallenged

ev id enc e is o f

f e red

. . . . [H ere, i]t is c lear f ro m the rec o r d that the

. . .

mo tio n f o r mistrial [gro u nd ed o n the Co nf ro ntatio n Clau se w as] no t timely, as [it w as] no t mad e c o ntemp o raneo u sly w ith the intro du c t io n o f

the [similar transac tio n] ev id enc e bu t rather [af t e r the State rested ]. 2 0

Resu ltingly, w e rev iew this c laim f o r p lain e r ro r, and Eberso le “ mu st p o int to

an e r ro r that w a s no t a f

f irmativ ely w aiv e d

, t he erro r mu st hav e been c lear and no t

o p en to reaso nable d isp u te, t he erro r mu st hav e a f f ec ted his su bstantial rights, and the

erro r m u st hav e serio u sly af f ec ted t h e fa i r n e s s , i n t e g r ity o r p u blic rep u tatio n o f j u d ic ial

p ro c eed ings. ” 2 1 Eberso le f ails to meet this bu rd e n. Ou r Su p reme Co u rt rec ently held

that

2 0 (Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o m itted ; emp hasis su p p lied

. ) Jo n es v

. S ta te , 31 7
Ga. 46 6 , 47 2 (2) (89 3 SE2d 7 41 ) (2023).

2 1 (Citatio n o mitted

. ) McKi n n ey v

. S ta te , 307 Ga

. 1 2 9
, 134 ( 2) (834 SE2d 7 41 ) (201 9 ).

14[a]n erro r c anno t be p la i n w h e r e t here is no c ontro lling au tho rity o n

p o int. [Eberso le] has id entif ied no c ontro lling a u tho rity

– no r hav e w e

f o u nd any

– su pp o rting his argu ment that [intro d u c tio n of ev id enc e o f a

similar transac tio n thro u gh a c o p y o f an ind ic tm e n t]

. . . i s

. . . inad m issible u nd er the Co nf ro ntatio n Clau se.

. . . M oreo v er, altho u gh

[the Su p reme C o u r t o f Geo rgia] rec ently held that the Co nf r o ntatio n

Clau se is v io lated w hen c o nv ic tio ns o f o ther p eo p le are ad mitted against

a d ef end ant, [that c o u rt] exp lained that no thing abo u t this sc enario c a n

be read to su ggest that a p artic u lar d ef e nd ant’ s p rio r c o nv ic tio n c o u ld

no t be used against t hat s a me d ef end ant in his o r her o w n case u nd er the

p ro p er circ u mstanc e s. B ec au se there is no c o ntro lling au tho rity

su p p o rting [Eberso le’ s ] argu ment, he has f ailed to sho w a c lear erro r. 2 2

A s a resu lt, w hether interp reted as a claim that the t r ial c ou rt f ailed to grant a mistrial

o r as an e v i d e n t i ary obj e c tio n raised f or the first time o n a p p eal, t his c laim o f erro r

p ro v id es no basis f

o r rev e rsal.

2. Eberso le next c o ntend s that the trial c o u rt erred in o v erru ling his o bj ec tio n

to the State’ s mentio n o f the c hild v ic tim’ s a ge d u ring c lo sing w hen the same w as no t

in ev id enc e and that it f

urther erred in no t instru c ting the j u ry t o d isregard the remark

o r to ad mo nish the State. W e f ind no rev ersible erro r

.

Geo r gia law p ro vid es that

2 2 (Citatio ns a nd p u nc tu a tio n o mitted ; emp hasis in o riginal. ) I d. at 1 34- 1 35 (2).

15[w ] here c o u nsel in the hearing o f the j u ry mak e statements o f p rej u d ic ial

matters whic h are no t in ev id enc e, it is t he d u ty of the c o u rt to interp o se

and prev ent the same. On o bj ec tio n mad e , the c o u rt shall a lso r e bu k e the

c o u nsel and by all need f

u l and p r o p er instru c t io ns to the j u ry end eav o r

to remo v e the imp ro p er imp ressio n f ro m t h e i r mind s ; o r, in his

d isc retio n, he may o rd er a m i s t r ial if the p ro sec u ting atto rney is the

o f f end er. 2 3

“ T h e typ e o f instru ctio n that is nec essary af ter the p ro sec u ting atto rney mak e s a

statement a bo u t a p rej ud ic ial matter no t in ev id enc e w ill v ary d ep end ing u p o n the

p rej u dic ial imp ac t o f t he p ro se c u t o r ’ s s tatement, w ith sp ec if ic instru c tio ns being

nec essary in p artic u l a r l y p rej ud ic ial c ases, and general instru c tio ns [that c lo sing

statements are no t ev id enc e] su f f ic ing in mo st c ases. ” 2 4

H ere, d u ring its c lo sing argu ment the State said : “ H ow d o w e k no w [Eberso le]

d o esn’ t c a r e a bo u t the d esires o f the p eo p le that he has sexu al relatio ns with?

. . .

B e c a u se he is co nv ic ted o f c hild mo lestatio n. D o y o u think the 1 1

- year- o ld girl in

Co u nt 1 o f that c o nv ic tio n c o nsented to h i m t o u ch i n g h e r ? ” E b erso le o bj ec t e d bec au se

the e v i d e n c e p resented at trial d id no t inc lu d e the sp ec if ic age o f the v ic tim o f the

2 3 OCGA § 1 7

- 8- 7 5.

2 4 (Citatio n and pu nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Jo n es v

. S t a te , 29 2 Ga. 656
, 6 6 2 (2) ( 7 40
SE2d 59 0) (201 3).

16ch ild mo lestatio n. The t r ial co u r t o verru led Eberso le’ s o bj ec ti o n a n d i m m e d i a t e l y t o l d

the j u ro r s that w hat the atto rneys said in c lo sing w as no t ev id enc e

.

The trial c o u r t erred in o verru ling Eberso le’ s o bj ec tio n bec au se he w as c o rrec t

that the sp ec if

ic age o f the v ic tim w a s no t in ev id enc e. A ll that w as in ev id e n c e w a s

t h a t sh e was a c hild u nd er the age o f 1 6

. “[A ]ltho u gh su c h a f ailu re c an c o nstitu t e

rev ersible erro r , the erro r is su bj ec t to ap p lic atio n o f harmless erro r analysis. ” 2 5 H ere,

w e ho ld the erro r w as harmless. The remark abo u t the v ic tim’ s age w a s f leeting, and

Eberso le immed iately obj e c ted

. A ltho u gh the trial c o u rt f ai l e d to p erf

o r m the d u ty

imp o sed by OCGA § 1 7- 8- 7 5, it d id immed iately tell the j u ry that c lo sing statements

w ere no t ev id e nc e a nd rep eated that ad m o nitio n du r ing the c harge o f t h e j u ry.

M o reo v er, it is u nlik ely t hat the j u ry w o u ld hav e s ignif ic antly d if f e rent f eelings abo u t

Eberso le mo lesting an 1 1 -year- o ld as o p p o sed to a c hild o f a ny o t her age u nd er 1 6
, su c h

that any p rej u d ic e f

ro m t he remark w as minimal. W e ho ld that it is “ highly p ro bable

2 5 (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o m itted

. ) W a lker v

. S ta t

e , 2 8 1 G a. 521
, 524 (5) (6 40
SE2d 27 4) (2007 ).

17that the trial c o u r t’ s erro r in f a iling to su stain [Eberso le’ s] o bj ec tio ns and p erf o rm its

d u ty u nd er OCGA § 1 7

- 8- 7 5 d id no t c o ntribu te to the v erd ic t. ” 2 6

3. Eberso le c o ntend s the trial c o u rt erred in failing to grant a mistrial w hen the

State c o mmented o n t he exerc ise o f his right to remain si l e nt du ring the State’ s

c lo sing argu ment. Eberso le w aiv ed this issu e

.

D u ring c lo s ing argu ment, the State mad e the f o llo w ing statement:

Y’ all, this i s a r a p e- typ e c ase. This c o mes d o w n to tw o p eo p le in that

ro o m; o ne w as [the v ic tim], and the o ther is [ E berso le]. And we o nly

heard f ro m one of them, and no w [Eberso le] d o esn’ t hav e to testif y. He

has no bu rd e n to testif

y. He d oesn’ t hav e to p u t u p a ny witnesses, he has

2 6 I d

. (ho ld ing that the t rial c o u rt’ s f a ilu re to f u lf ill its d u ty u nd er OCGA § 1 7

- 8-

7 5 w as harmless “ [ b]ec au se the imp ro p er statement inv o lv ed sp ec ulatio n a b o u t a

p o tential d e f

ense ap p ellant c learly d id no t assert at trial, b ec au se it c o nsisted o f o nly

o ne sentenc e sp o ken simu ltaneo u sly w ith def e nse c o u nsel’ s p r o m p t o b j e c tio n, and

bec au se the trial c ou rt in p reliminary instru c tio ns bef o re c lo sing to ld the j ury that the

argu ment o f c o u nsel w as no t ev id enc e [. ] ); Fi ncher v

. S ta t

e , 27 6 Ga. 480, 482- 483 (4) (57 8 SE2d 1 02) (2003) (ho ld ing that a m isstatement in c lo s ing abo ut the lac k o f blo o d

o n the p o rc h and the m isattribu tio n of a w itness’ s tatement did no t lik ely co ntribu t e

to t he v erd ic t bec au se the statement abo u t the blo o d “ w as argu ably no mo re than an

o v e rstatement (mo s t o f the blo o d had been wa s h e d o f f the p o r c h) o f the ev id enc e, bec au se the mistak en attribu tio n o f testimo ny w as insignif ic ant in light o f the f

ac t that

sev eral w itnesses had giv en similar testimo ny regard ing [the d ef end ant’ s] statements

o f anger t o ward [the v ic tim], and bec a u se the trial c o u rt to ld the j u ry in p reliminary

instru c tio ns and the p ro sec u ting atto rney remind ed the j u ry in c lo sing argu m ent that the argu ment o f

c o u nsel w as no t ev id enc e [

. ]” ).

18no bu r d e n o f pro o f

, bu t w e o nly heard f

r o m o ne o f t ho se ind iv id u als.

That’ s it.

Eberso le o bj ec ted that the s t a t e m e n t w a s a c o mment o n the e xerc ise o f his right to

remain silent. The trial co u rt interj ec ted and to ld the j u ry that Eberso le had no bu rd en

o f p r o o f o r o bligatio n to testif y. A t no time d id Eberso le mo v e f o r a mistrial as a resu lt

o f this c o m m ent d u ring c lo sing. A s stated abo v e, Eberso le’ s f ailu re to mo v e f

o r a

mistrial o n this gro u nd means that this issu e is no t p reserv e d f o r ap pellate rev iew

. 2 7

4. Eberso le c o nten d s t h a t the trial c o u rt erred in p ermitting ad missio n o f

ev id enc e c o nc erning his intere s t i n t a ro t c ard s and “ t he d ev il” bec au se it w as

irrelev a nt and u nf

airly p rej u d ic ial. W e d isagree.

A t trial, t he v ic tim testif

ied abo u t Eberso le’ s r ep eated d isc u ssio n of “t h e d ev il”

and interest in taro t c a rd s p rio r to t he assau lt. She a lso testif ied a bo ut Eberso le’ s

d emeano r d u ring the a s s a u lt: Eberso le telling her he w as “ the d ev il” and that he

w o u ld k ill her; Eberso le’ s c hanting and sp eak ing in an u nk no w n l a n g u a g e ; and the

v i ct i m ’ s o p i n i o n t h a t E berso le so u nd ed “ d emo nic

. ” Fu rther, the j u r y h e a r d t e s t i m o n y

f ro m t he arresting o ff

ic er and v iew ed his b o d y c amera f oo t age d ep i c t i n g E b e r so le

2 7 Ba tes , 31 7 Ga. at 81 8 (3) (b).

19c u r sing the d ep u ty, c hanting in an u nk no wn langu a ge, and ref e renc ing “ Satan” and

“ L u c if er. ”

A s p r ev io u sly stated

, “ [ e]v id enc e is relev ant if it has ‘ a n y ten den cy ’ to p ro v e o r

d isp ro ve a f

ac t[. ] ” 2 8 The ev id enc e at issu e w as relev a nt and intrinsic ev id e nc e.

Ev id enc e is ad missible as intrinsic ev id e nc e, rather than extrinsic

ev id enc e su bj ec t to Ru le 404 (b), w hen it is (1 ) a n u n c h ar g ed o f f ense arising f ro m t he s ame transac tio n o r series o f transac tio ns as the c harged

o f f ense; (2) n e c e s sary to c o mp lete the sto ry of the c rime; o r (3)

inextric ably intertw ined w ith the ev id e nc e regard ing the c h a r g ed

o f f ense. 2 9

The Su p reme Co u rt o f

Geo rgia has held that

ev id enc e o f o ther ac ts is “ inext r i c a b l y intertw ined ” with t he ev id enc e regard ing the c harged o ff ense if it f o rm s an i n t e gral and natu ral p art o f

t h e w itness’ s ac c o u nts o f the c irc u mstanc es su rro und ing the o f f enses f o r

w hic h the d ef

e nd a nt w as ind ic ted

. And t his so r t o f i ntrinsic ev id enc e

rema i n s a d missible ev e n if it inc id entally plac es the def end ant’ s

c harac ter at issu e

. 3 0

2 8 (Citatio n o mitted ; emp hasis in o riginal. ) McIv er , 31 4 Ga. at 1 45 (3) (a).

2 9 (Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Ha rri s v

. S t a te , 31 0 G a. 37 2, 37 7 (2) (b) (850 SE2d 7 7 ) (2020).

3 0 (Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted .) Wi lli a ms v

. Sta te , 302 G a. 47 4, 486 (I V ) (d ) (807 SE2d 350) (201 7 ).

20H ere, ev en tho u gh it may ha v e r e f lec ted negativ ely o n his c harac ter, the

ev id enc e o f Eberso le’ s f

asc inatio n w ith taro t c ard s and inv o c atio n o f “ the d ev il” w as

bo t h relev ant a nd inextric a bly intertw ined w ith the c harged o f f enses a s h e w as

ref erenc ing “ the d ev il” d u r ing and immed iately af ter the assau lt.

“ Ev en w hen ev id enc e is intrinsic

, ho w ev e r, it m u st also satisf y [OCGA § 24- 4-

403]. I t is w ithin the trial c o u rt’ s so u nd d isc retio n to d etermine w hether to ad mit su c h

ev id enc e, so w e rev iew a tr i a l c o u rt’ s ru ling ad mitting ev id enc e as intrinsic f o r an

abu se o f that d isc r etio n. ” 3 1

Rel e v ant intrinsic ev id enc e may be exc lu d ed if its p ro b ativ e v alu e is

su bstantially o u tw eighed by t he d anger of u nf a ir p rej u d ic e, c o nf

usio n o f

the issu es, or mislead ing the j ury or by c o nsid eratio ns o f u n d u e d e l a y ,

w aste of time, o r need less p resentatio n o f c u mu lativ e ev id enc e. There is

n o mec hanic a l so lu tio n f o r t his b alanc ing test, and a trial c ou rt mu s t

u nd ertak e in eac h c ase a c o nsid ered ev alu a t i o n o f the p ro f f ered
j u stif ic a t i o n fo r t h e a d m i ssio n o f su c h e vid enc e and mak e an ind ep end ent

d eterminatio n. [ The Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia has] exp lained that this

balanc e sho u ld be stru c k in f av or o f ad missibility. 3 2

3 1 (Citatio ns and p u nc t u atio n o mitted

. ) H a rri s , 31 0 Ga. at 37 7 (2) (b).

3 2 (Citatio ns a nd p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Hea de v

. S t a te , 31 2 Ga. 1 9
, 26

- 27 (3) (86 0 SE2d 509 ) (2021 )

.

2 1W e ho ld that the trial c o u rt d id no t abu s e its d isc retio n in f ailing to exc lu d e this

ev id enc e o n the gro u nd s that i t w as u nf airly p rej u d ic ial. The ev id enc e w a s highly

p ro bativ e as it w o u ld hav e b e en imp o ssible fo r the State to p resent the c harged

o f f e n s e s in f u ll if the ev id enc e w as exc lu d ed

, and the high p ro bativ e valu e o f t h e

ev id enc e w as no t su b s t a n t i al l y o u tw eighed by u nf air p rej u d ic e ev en tho u gh it may

hav e inc id entally p lac ed Eberso le’ s c harac ter at issu e. 3 3

5. Lastly, Eberso le c o ntend s that the c u mu lativ e ef fec t o f the trial c o u rt’ s erro rs

w arrant a new trial. W e d isagree.

“ G eo rgia c ou rts c o nsid ering w hether a c riminal d ef end ant is entitled to a new

trial s ho u ld co nsid er c o llec tiv e ly the prej ud ic ial ef f ec t o f trial c o urt erro rs and any

3 3 See S mi t

h v

. S t a te , 307 Ga. 26 3, 27 3 (2) (c ) ( 834 SE2d 1 ) (201 9 ) (“ B ec au se [the w itnesses’ ] statements w ere ad missible as intrinsic e v i d e nc e a nd bec au se the

p ro bativ e v alu e o f su c h ev id e nc e w as no t su b stantially o u t w e ighed b y the d anger o f

u nf air p r ej ud ic e to [the d ef

end ants], the trial c o u rt did no t abu se its d isc retio n by

ad mitting [these] statements. This enu merat i o n o f erro r theref ore f ails. ” ); see also

Ha rri s , 31 0 Ga. at 382 ( 2) (b) (ho ld ing that the trial c o u rt d id no t abu se its d isc retio n in f ailing t o e x c l u d e intrinsic ev id enc e p u rsu ant t o OCGA § 24- 4- 403 that the

d ef end ant b ro k e items in the ho me o f ano ther wo man w ho t hen o btained a temp o rary

p ro tec tiv e o rd e r o u t o f

f ear f o r her lif e af ter she mad e the d ef

e nd a nt leav e her ho me in a c ase w here the def

end ant w as c harged w ith so o n t hereaf ter mu rd ering a w o man

w ho w as abo u t to mak e him leav e her ho me).

22d ef

ic ient p erf

ormanc e by c o u nse l

— at least w here tho se erro rs b y the c o u rt and

c o u nsel inv o lv e ev id entiary issu es. ” 3 4

To establish c u mu lativ e erro r, [Eberso le] mu s t sho w that (1 ) at least tw o

erro rs w e r e c o mmitted in the c o u rse o f t he trial; and (2) c onsid ered

to gether alo ng w ith the entire rec o rd

, the mu ltip le erro rs so inf ec ted the
j u ry’ s d eliberatio n that they d enied [Eberso le] a f u nd amentally fair t r ial.

H o w ev er, w hen rev iew ing a c laim o f c u mu lativ e prej u d ic e, [ a p p e l l a te

c o u rts ] e v alu ate o nly the ef f ec ts o f matters d etermined t o be erro r, no t

the c u mu lativ e ef

f ec t o f no n- erro rs. 3 5

This Co u rt has no t id entif ied tw o erro rs m ad e by t he trial c o u rt, ac c o r d i n g l y , this

c laim is w itho u t merit.

Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed. D o yle, P. J.

, an d Ho dges

, J.

, co n cu r

.

3 4 S ta te v

. La n e , 308 Ga. 1 0, 1 4 (1 ) (838 SE2d 808) (2020).

3 5 (Citatio ns and p u nc tu a tio n o mitted

. ) Flo o d v

. S ta te , 31 1 Ga. 800, 808- 809 (1 ) (d ) (86 0 SE2d 7 31 ) (2021 )

.

23