FI RST DI VI SI ON

BA RNES, P. J.

, GOBEI L and PI PKI 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.

https ://w w w

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

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

Januar y 28, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A1 79 5 . HARRIS v . THE STATE.

P I P K I N , J u d g e.

A ju ry fo u n d Ch arl es H arri s gu i l ty o f rap e, ch i l d m o l es t at i o n , an d fal s e

i m p ri s o n m en t

, an d h e was s en t en ced t o l i fe i n p ri s o n wi th o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p aro l e.

Fo l l o wi ng t h e d en i al o f a m o t i o n fo r n e w t r i a l

, Harri s ap p eal s ch al l en g i n g t h e

s u ffi ci en cy o f th e ev i den ce an d t h e t ri al co u r t ’s f a i l u r e t o fu l fi ll i t s ro l e as t h e

“ Th i rt een t h J uro r.” H arri s al s o co n t en d s t hat th e t ri al co u rt erred i n ad m i t t i n g

ev i d en ce an d t hat h e was en t i t l ed t o a m i st ri al b as ed u p o n a Br a dy v i o lat i o n

. Fi n al l y ,

Harri s arg u es t hat t h e cu m ul at i v e p reju d i ci al effect o f t he erro rs warran t s t h e g ran t o f

a n ew t ri al

. Fo r t h e fo l l o w i n g reas o n s , we d i s ag ree wi th Harri s ’ s co n t en t i o n s an d

affi rm

.1

. As a t h res ho l d m at t er, we n o t e t h at Harri s ’ s bri ef fai ls t o co m p l y wi t h t h i s

Co u rt ’ s ru l es , wh i ch req u i re, am o n g o t h er t hi n g s , t h at a bri ef “ co n t ai n a s ucci n ct an d

accu rat e s t at em en t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b el o w an d t h e m at eri al fact s rel ev an t t o t h e

ap p eal ; a ci t at i o n o f t h e p art s o f t h e reco rd o r t ran s cri p t es s en ti al t o a co n s i d erat i o n

o f t h e erro rs .” See Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru le 2 5 (a) (1 ). Al t h o u g h H arri s ch al len g es t h e

s u ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i den ce, h e p ro v i d es n o m ean i n g fu l s t at em en t of fact s

. Rat h er, h e

b ro ad l y co n t en d s t h at t h e ev id en ce was i n s u ffi ci en t an d c i t e s t o t h e “ En t i re Tri al

Tran s cri p t .” H o w ev er, “ [i ] t is n o t t h e fu n c t i on o f t hi s Co urt to cu ll t h e reco rd o n

b eh al f o f a p art y i n s earch of i n s t an ces o f erro r. T h e b urd en i s u po n t h e p art y al l eg i n g

erro r to s h ow i t affi rm at i v el y i n t h e reco rd .” (Ci t at i o n a n d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Pa t t er s o n v. S t a t e , 3 2 7 Ga. Ap p . 6 9 5 , 6 9 6 (1 ) (7 61 SE2 d 1 0 1) (2 01 4 ).

Ou r ru l es al so req ui re t h a t a b r i e f “ co n t ai n t h e arg u m en t an d ci t at i o n o f

au t h o ri t ies [.] ” See Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 5 (a) (3 ). Harri s at t em p t s t o s at i s fy t h i s

ru l e, i n part

, b y referr i n g t o “ g ro u n d s , reas o n s an d arg u m en t s as were s t at ed

,

art i cu l at ed an d d ev el o p ed b y Defen d an t ’ s Tri al Co u n s el o n t h e reco rd at Defen d an t ’ s

J u ry T ri al al l o f wh i ch are i n co rp o rat ed b y referen ce as i f fu l l y res t at ed herei n .” Su ch

an at t em pt t o b o o t s t rap arg u m en t s rai sed b el o w t o an ap p el l at e bri ef d o es n o t s at i s fy

t h i s Co u rt ’ s req u i rem en t t h at a b ri ef co nt ai n arg u m en t an d ci t at i o n t o au t h o ri t y

. See

2Al l Fl eet Ref i ni s hi n g v. W

. G eo r g i a Na t

. B a n k

, 2 8 0 Ga. Ap p. 67 6

, 6 8 2 (6 ) (6 3 4 SE2 d

8 0 2 ) (2 0 0 6 ).

Harri s ’ s fai lu re t o fu l l y co m p l y wi th t h is Co urt ’ s ru l es h as h am p ered o u r ab i l i t y

t o co n s id er t h e m eri t s o f t h i s ap p eal

. W e wi l l nev ert h el es s

– to t he ex t en t w e are ab l e

– co n s id er t h o s e arg u m en ts t h at were rai s ed i n t h e b ri ef an d s u p p o rt ed b y arg u m en t

an d ci t at i o n o f au t h o ri t y

.

2

. Harri s co n t en d s t h at t h e e v i d e n c e w as in s u ffi ci en t t o s up p ort th e ju ry ’ s

v e r d i c t

. Sp eci fi cal l y , h e as s ert s t h at t h ere was n o ev id en ce o t h er t h an t h e v i ct i m ’ s

t es t i m o ny i n wh at h e d es cri b es as a “ h e s ai d -s h e s ai d ” cas e.

On ap peal fro m a cri m i n al co n v i ct io n , we vi ew t h e ev i den ce i n t h e l i g h t

m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e v erd i ct

, wi th t h e d efen d an t n o lo n g er en jo y in g a

p res um p t i o n of in no cen ce. W e n ei th er wei g h th e ev id en ce n o r ju d g e th e

cred ib i l i t y o f wi t n es s es , b u t d et erm in e o n l y wh et h er t h e ev i d en ce w as

s u ffi ci en t fo r a rat i o n al tri er of fact t o fi n d t h e d efen dan t g ui l t y o f th e

ch arg ed o ffen s e b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o ub t

.

(Ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at io n o m i t ted ). Oa t es v. S ta t e , 3 55 Ga. Ap p

. 3 0 1

, 3 01 (8 4 4 SE2 d

2 3 9 ) (2 0 2 0 ).

Vi ewed i n t h i s l i g h t

, t h e ev i d en ce s h o ws th at th e v i ct i m l i v ed wi t h h er m o t h er

an d y o u n g er s i s t er an d th at Harri s , wh o was a p at ern al u n cl e, l i v ed wi t h t h em

. Harri s

3wo u l d bab y si t t h e ch i ld ren w h i l e t h e m o th er wo rk ed ov ern i g h t s h i ft s

. W h e n t h e

v i ct i m was s ev en , Harri s b eg an m o l es t i n g h er. Th e fi rs t t i m e, t h e v i ct i m wo k e at n i g ht

t o f i n d Harri s o n to p o f h er, “ p u s h i n g u p o n ” h er. Th e v i ct i m fel t ex t rem e p ai n an d

b u rn in g , an d s h e beg an t o cry

. Aft er H arri s s t o pp ed

, t h e v i ct im wen t i n t o t h e

b at h ro o m t o wi p e h ers el f an d fo u n d a “ cl eari s h red ” f l u i d o n t h e t i s s ue. A ft er t h at

n i g h t

, H arri s fo rced h i m s el f o n t h e v i ct i m o n m u l t i p l e o ccas i on s

. A cco rd i n g t o t h e

v i ct i m , Harri s wo u l d p i n h er arm s o v er h er h ead an d k i s s h er; h e wen t “ i n an d o u t o f

h er p ri v at es ” wi t h hi s “ p ri v at es ,” wh i ch c a u s e d pai n

. H arri s th reat en ed to h arm t h e

v i ct i m i f s h e t o l d an y o n e.

Th e v ict i m ’ s m o t h er n o t i ced ch an g es i n t h e v i c t i m ’s b eh av i o r. Th e v i ct i m

b eg an t o s ay “ m ean an d h at efu l t h i n g s ” t o h er m o t h er an d si s t er, an d th e m o t h er as k ed

t h e v i ct i m wh at was hap p en i n g

. At fi rs t

, t h e v i ct im w as u n w il li n g t o t el l her m o t h er

wh at was h ap p en i n g , b u t aft er Harri s w as arres t ed o n u n rel at ed ch arg es , 1 t h e v i ct i m

t o l d h er m o t her th at Harri s had b een “ t o u ch i n g her” an d h ad “ k i s s [ed ] h er b et ween

h er l eg s .” Th e m o t h er cal l ed t h e p ol i ce.

Det ect i v e Dav i d Jo n es w a s as s ig n ed t o t h e cas e, an d he arran g ed a fo ren s i c

i n t erv i ew. Du ri n g t h e i n t erv i ew, wh i ch was reco rd ed on v i d eo an d p l ay ed fo r t h e ju ry ,

1 Harri s was t ak en i n t o cu s t o dy fo r fai li n g t o reg i s ter as a s ex o ffen d er.

4t h e v i ct i m reco u nt ed t h e ab us e s h e s u ffered at H arri s ’ s h an d s

. Sh e g es tu red t o s h o w

h o w Harri s wo u l d p i n h er arm s o v er h er h ead t o t ry t o k is s h er.

Th e St at e al s o p res en t ed ev i d en ce fro m T. F., a s i m i l ar t ran s act i o n wi t n es s

. In

t h e 1 9 8 0 s an d 1 99 0 s , T. F. l i v ed wi t h Harri s , wh o was th e co m m o n -l aw hu s b an d o f

T. F.’ s g ran d m o th er. T. F. t es t i fi ed t h at , wh en s h e was fi v e, Harri s b eg an m o l es t i n g

h er. Th e fi rs t t i m e, Harri s t o o k T. F. fro m h er b ed as sh e w a s s l e ep i n g , an d h e

p en et rat ed h er an u s wi t h h i s p en i s

. Two y ears l at er, Harri s p en et rat ed T. F.’ s v ag i na.

Fro m t h at p o in t

, Harri s co n t i n u ed t o m o l es t T. F. un t i l s h e was twel v e, wh en h e was

cau g ht i n an act o f m o l es t at i on

.

Harri s w as ch arg ed wi t h n u m ero u s offen s es , i ncl u d i n g rap e, ch i l d m o l es t at i o n

b as ed o n k i s s i n g t h e v i ct im o n t h e m o u t h

, fal s e i m pri s o n m en t

, ag grav at ed as s au l t

, an d

p o s s es s i o n o f a k n i fe d u ri n g t he co m m i s s i o n of a fel o ny

. Th e ju ry fo un d Harri s g ui l t y

o f rap e, ch i l d m o les tat i o n , an d fal s e i m p ri s o n m en t

, b ut acq ui t t ed h i m o f t h e rem ai n i n g

ch arg es

. 2

On ap p eal

, Harri s arg u es t hat t h e ev i d en ce w a s i n s u f f i ci en t t o s u s t ai n h i s

co n vi ct i o n s b ecau s e t h e o n l y “ ey e wi t n es s ” tes t im on y cam e fro m th e v i ct i m

.

2 Th e t ri al co urt m erg e d t h e co n v i ct i o n s fo r k i d n ap p i n g an d rap e d u ri n g

s en t en ci n g

.

5Ho wev er, t h e v i c t i m ’ s t es t i m o n y al o n e i s s u ffi ci en t t o s u s t ai n Harri s ’ s co nv i ct i o n s

.

See To r r es v. S t a t e , 3 5 3 G a. Ap p

. 4 7 0, 47 6 (1 ) (8 3 8 SE2 d 1 3 7 ) (2 0 2 0 ); W es t v. S t a t e ,

3 3 9 Ga. Ap p

. 2 7 9

, 2 8 1 (1 ) (7 93 SE2 d 1 8 0 ) (2 0 1 6); Ro b er s on v. S t a t e , 3 2 7 Ga. Ap p.

8 0 4

, 8 0 6 (1 ) (7 6 1 SE2 d 3 6 1 ) (2 0 1 4 ). Fu rt herm ore, th e v i ct i m ’ s t es ti m o n y w as n o t t h e

o n l y ev i d en ce p res en t ed

. Th e j u ry a l s o h eard t es t i m o n y fro m a s i m i l ar t ran s act i o n

wi t n es s , wh i ch s h o wed Harri s ’ s p ro p en si t y t o co m m i t t he cri m e o f ch i l d m o l es t at i o n.

Un d er t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces , t h e ju ry was au t h o ri zed t o fi n d Harri s g u i l ty

. See Tu do r

v. S t a t e , 3 2 0 Ga. Ap p . 4 8 7, 4 90 (1 ) (7 4 0 SE2 d 2 3 1) (2 01 3 ).

3 . In a rel at ed cl ai m

o f erro r, Harri s co n ten d s t h at h e i s en t i t l ed t o a n ew t ri al

b as ed u p o n t h e t ri al co urt ’ s fai lu re t o fu l fi l l i t s ro le as t h e “ T hi rt een t h J u ro r.”

In an y cas e wh en t h e v erd i ct of a j u ry is fo un d co n trary t o ev i d en ce an d

t h e p ri n ci p l es o f ju s t i ce an d eq u i t y , t h e ju d g e p res i d i n g m ay gran t a new

t ri al b efo re an o t h er ju ry

. Th e p res i d i n g ju d g e m a y ex erci se a s o u n d

d i s c r e t i o n in g ran ti n g o r refu s i n g new tri al s i n cas es wh ere t h e v erd i ct

m ay b e deci d ed l y an d st ro n g l y ag ai n st t h e wei g ht o f t h e ev i den ce ev en

t h o u g h th ere m ay ap p ear t o b e s om e s l i g h t ev i d en ce i n fav o r o f t h e

fi nd in g

. W h en p ro p erl y rai s ed i n a t i m el y m o t i o n , t h es e g ro u n d s f o r a

n ew t ri al

– co m

m o n l y k n o wn as t h e “ g en eral g ro u n d s ”

– req ui re t h e t ri al

ju d g e to ex erci s e a b ro ad di s cret i o n t o s i t a s a “ t h i rt een t h ju ro r.” In

ex erci s i n g t h at d i s cret i o n , t h e t ri al ju d g e m u s t co n s i d er s o m e o f th e

t h i n gs t h at [h e or] s h e can n o t wh en as s es s i n g t he l eg al s u ffi ci en cy o f th e

6ev i d en ce, i n cl ud i n g an y co n fl i ct s in t h e ev i den c e, th e cred i b i l i t y o f

wi t n es s es , an d t h e wei g ht o f t h e ev i d en ce.

(Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ). Ma s s ey v. S t a t e , 34 6 Ga. Ap p

. 23 3

, 2 3 5 -2 3 6 (2 )

(8 1 6 SE2 d 1 0 0 ) (2 0 1 8 ).

Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er m ak es cl ear t h at t h e j u d ge ex erci s ed d i s cre t i o n an d

co n si d ered t h e wei g h t o f t h e ev i d en ce i n co n cl ud i n g t h at Harr i s w a s n o t en t i t l ed to

a n ew t ri al on g en eral g ro u n d s

. Becau s e th e t ri al co u rt act ed wi t h i n i t s d is cret i o n , we

wi l l n ot i n t erfere wi th i t s ru l i ng o n ap peal

. See Di xo n v. S t a t e , 34 1 Ga. Ap p

. 2 5 5

, 2 6 4

(2 ) (b ) (8 0 0 SE 2 d 1 1 ) ( 2 0 1 7 ) (“ A m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al o n [g en eral g ro u n d s ] i s n ot

p ro p erl y ad d res s ed t o t h i s Co u r t a s s u ch a d eci s i o n i s on e t h at i s s o l el y wi t h i n t h e

d i s cret i o n o f t h e t ri al co u rt .”) (p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

4

. Harri s arg u es t h at t he t r i a l c o u rt erred i n p erm i t t in g T. F. t o tes t i fy as a

s i m i l ar t ran s act i on wi tn es s

. Acco rd i n g t o Harri s , t h e p ri o r act s were t o o r e m o t e in

t i m e an d t h e p reju d i ci al effect o f ad m i tt i n g t h e ev i d en ce o ut wei g h ed an y p r o b a t i v e

v al u e.

“ In a cr i m i n a l p ro ceed i n g in wh i ch t he accu s ed i s accu s ed o f an o ffen s e o f

ch i l d m o l es t at i o n , ev i d en ce o f t h e accu s ed ’ s co m m is s i o n o f an ot h er o ffen se o f ch i ld

m o les t at i o n s h al l b e ad m i s s i b l e an d m ay b e co n s i d ered fo r i ts b eari n g o n an y m at t er

7t o wh i ch i t i s rel ev an t .” OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 1 4

. Un d er t h i s “ ru l e of i n cl u s i o n,” t h ere i s a

s t ro n g p res u m

p ti o n i n fav o r o f ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f a p ri or act o f m o l es tat i o n

. See S t a t e

v. McPh er

s o n , 3 41 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 1

, 8 7 3 (8 0 0 SE2 d 3 8 9 ) (2 0 1 7 ). Su ch s i m i l ar

t ran s act io n ev i d en ce i s rel ev an t t o t h e i s s u e o f wh et h er a d efen d an t h as a pro p en s i t y

t o co m m i t cert ai n s ex u al offen s es

. Id

. Ho wev er, a t ri al co urt m ay st i ll ex cl u d e t h e

ev i d en ce “ i f i t s p ro b at i v e v al u e i s s u b s t a n t i al l y ou t wei g h ed b y t h e d an g er o f u n fai r

p reju d i ce, co n fu s io n o f t h e i s s u es , or m is l ead in g t h e ju r y o r b y c o ns i d erat i o n s o f

u n d u e d el ay , w as t e o f t i m e, o r n eed l es s p res en t at i o n of cu m u l at i v e e v i d en ce.”

(Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). S t u r g i s v

. S t a t e , 3 5 6 Ga. Ap p

. 2 1 9

, 2 2 1 (8 4 2

SE2 d 8 2) (2 0 2 0). W e rev i ew a t ri al co urt ’ s ad m i ss i o n o f s uch ev i d en ce un d er a cl ear

ab u se o f d i s cret i o n s tan d ard . See i d.

Th e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s cret i o n in al lo wi n g T. F. t o t es ti fy

. Th e

s i m i l ari t y b et ween t h e act s o f m o l es t at i o n were m ark ed ; b o t h i n v o lv ed H arri s h av i n g

acces s t o a y o u n g ch i l d t h ro u g h fam i l ial rel at i o n s

. In b o t h i n s t an ces , Harri s’ s i n i t i al

act o f m o l es t at io n i n v o l v ed wak i n g t h e ch i l d i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e n i g h t. Harri s b eg an

p en et rat in g b o t h vi ct i m s v ag i n al l y wh en t h ey were s ev en y ears ol d

, an d h e m o l es t ed

b o t h v i ct i m s m

ul t i p l e t i m es

. U n d er t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces , t h e s i m i l ar t r a n s a c t i o n

ev i d en ce was ad m i s s i b l e to sh o w “ Harri s ’ s l u s t fu l d i s p o s i t i o n wi t h res p ect t o [s ev en

8y ear o ld ] g i rl s an d h i s p at t ern of m o l es t i n g y o un g g i r l s wi th wh om h e w as l i v i n g.”

Ha r ri s v. S t a t e , 3 4 0 Ga. Ap p. 8 6 5 , 8 6 9 (1 ) (b ) (7 9 8 SE2 d 4 98 ) (2 0 1 7 ).

Th e fact t h at t h e p ri o r i n ci d en t t o o k p l ace m o re th an twen t y y ears earl i er d o es

n o t ren d er t h e ev i den ce i n ad m is s i b l e. As we h av e h el d

,

Ex cl u s i o n of p ro o f o f ot h e r a c t s t h at are t o o rem ot e in t im e cat ers

p ri n ci p al l y to t he d u al co n cern s fo r r e l ev an ce an d rel i ab i l i t y

. T he

ev al uat io n of t he p ro ffered ev id en ce i n l ig h t of th es e co n cern s m u s t be

m ad e o n a cas e-b y -cas e bas i s t o d et erm i n e wh et h er t he s i g n i fi can ce o f

t h e p ri o r act s h as beco m e t o o at t en u at ed an d w h e t h e r t h e m em o ri es o f

t h e wi tn es s e s has li k el y b eco m e t o o frai l. Nei t h er Ru l e 4 0 3 n or an y

an al og o u s Ru l e p ro vi d es an y b ri g ht -l i n e ru l e as t o h o w o l d i s t o o o l d

.

(Fo o tn o te an d p u n ct u at i o n om i t t ed ). Ha r ri s , 3 4 0 Ga. Ap p

. 8 6 5 at 8 6 8

. Al t h ou g h t h e

act s t o wh i ch T. F. t es t i fi ed h ap p en ed y ears ag o , t h e t ri al co urt was n o t r e q u i red to

ex cl u d e t h e s i m i l ar tran s act i o n ev i d en ce. McAl l i st er v. S ta t e , 3 5 1 G a. A p p

. 76

, 8 3 -8 4

(1 ) (b ) (8 3 0 SE2 d 4 4 3 ) (2 0 1 9); Pet er s o n v. St a t e , 3 3 7 Ga

. A p p

. 7 0

, 7 4 (7 8 5 SE2 d

9 0 5 ) (2 0 1 6 ).

5

. Acco rd i n g t o Harri s , th e t ri al co u rt erred in al lo wi n g D et ect i v e Jo n es

– wh o

was n o t q u al i f

i e d a s a n ex p ert

– t o o ffer ex p ert t es t i m o n y

. 3 Du ri n g t ri al

, J o n es

3 Th e St at e d i d n o t s eek t o h av e J o nes q u al ifi ed as an ex p ert

.

9t es t i fi ed th at h e as k ed th e v i ct i m ’ s m o t h er t o tak e th e v i ct i m t o a ch i l d ren ’ s h o s p i t al

fo r a s p eci al i zed m ed ical ex am

. Bu t t he m o t h er t o o k t h e ch il d t o a l o c a l d o c t o r

i n s t ead

, an d n o m ed i cal pers o n n el t es t i fi ed at t ri al

. Th e p ro s ecu t o r as k ed J o n es :

“ B a s e d on y ou r ex p eri en ce i n sex u al as s au l t i n v es t i g at i o n s , i s t h ere n o rm al l y DNA

i n t hes e cas es ? ” Harri s o b ject ed o n t h e b as i s t h at m ed i cal ex p ert is e was req u i red t o

an s wer t h e q u es t i on

. Th e t ri al co u rt o v erru led t h e o b j ect i o n “ t o t h e ex t en t ” t h at J o n es

h ad ex p eri en ce, an d J o n es res p o n d ed : “ In cas es wh ere we are w i th i n [s i c] th e 7 2 -h o u r

wi n d o w, i t ’ s rare th at we get

. . . DNA. Oft en t i m es , i t m ay b e j u s t ep i t h el ial o r cel l

DNA. N o t h i n g l ik e t h e k i n d t h at y o u p ro b ab ly h ear ab o u t

, t h e s p erm o r an y t h i n g l i k e

t h at .” J o n es was t h en as k ed ab ou t i n ju ri es , an d h e s ai d i nju ri es were “ al s o s o m et h i n g

we d o n ’ t s ee t o o o ft en , b el i ev e i t o r n o t

, b ecau s e o f t h e t i s s ue t h at i s d o wn t h ere[; ] i t

h eal s rap id l y .” Ag ai n , H arri s o b ject ed t h at J o n es was o fferi n g m ed i cal t es t i m o n y , b ut

t h e co u rt p erm i t t ed t h e t es t i m o n y t o s t an d

. On ap p eal

, J o n es as s ert s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt

ab u sed i t s d i s cret i o n i n al l o wi n g J o n es t o t es t ify as a m ed i cal ex pert

.

A t ri al co u rt h as bro ad d i scret io n i n det erm i n in g ev i d en ce ad m i s s i b i l i t y

. An d u nd er Geo rg i a l aw, ev i d en ce wh i c h in co n n ect i o n wi t h o t h er

ev i d en ce t en d s , ev en s l i g h t ly

, t o pro v e, ex p l a i n , o r i l l u st rat e a fact i s

p ro b at iv e an d rel ev an t

. Do ub t as t o rel ev an cy sh o u ld b e res o l v ed i n

f av o r of ad m i s s i o n an d ag ai n s t ex cl u s i o n , wi t h t h e ev id en ce’ s w ei g h t

l eft t o t he ju ry

.

10(Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n om it t ed ). Ma r t i n ez -Ar i a s v. S t a t e ,

__ Ga. A p p

.

_ _ (1 ) (a)

(8 4 6 SE2 d 4 4 8 ) (2 0 2 0 ).

“ [W ] e h av e co n s i s t en t l y h el d t h at a p o l ice o ffi cer m ay g i ve op i n i o n t es t i m o ny

reg ard i n g h i s ob s erv at i o n s i f an a d e q u a t e fo un d at io n i s lai d wi th res pect t o h i s

ex p eri en ce an d trai ni n g , ev en i f h e i s n o t fo rm al l y t e n d e r e d as an ex p ert .” Go g g i n s

v. St a t e , 3 3 0 Ga. Ap p

. 3 5 0

, 3 62 (4 ) (g ) (7 6 7 SE2 d 7 5 3 ) (2 0 1 4 ). Here, J on es t es t i fi ed

t h at h e had y ears o f ex p eri en ce as an i n v es t ig at o r wi t h th e s p eci al v i ct i m s u n i t d eal i n g

wi t h ch il d ex p l o i t a t i o n , an d he tes t ifi ed reg ard i n g t h e p ro ced u res em p l o y ed in

i n v es t i g at i n g ch i l d ex p l o i t at i on cas es

. Th e q u es t i o n s p o sed t o h im p ert ai ned t o t h e

t y p es of ev id en ce no rm al l y co l l ecte d in pr ose c uting s ex cri m es ag ai n s t ch i l d ren

. J o n es

was t h u s au t h o ri zed t o t es ti fy t h at i t was co m m o n to h av e n o DNA ev i d en ce an d fo r

ch i l d v i ct i m s o f s ex cri m es t o h av e n o p h y s i cal i n ju ry

. See i d

. (i n v es ti g at o r au t h o ri zed

t o t es t i fy reg ard in g g ro o m i n g t ech n i q u es u s ed by sex u al p red at o rs ); M a r t i n ez -Ar ia s ,

_ _ Ga. A p p

.

__ ,

_

_ (1 ) (b ) (Lat i n Am e ri can s ch o o l co u n s el or co u l d t es t i fy as to

Lat i no cu l t u ral n o rm s b as ed u po n h er fi rs t -h an d ex p eri en ces ).

Ev en i f J o n es cro s s ed a l i n e i n t o o fferi ng m ed i cal ev i d en ce wh en h e t es t i fi ed

t h at “ t i ss u e d o wn t h ere

. . . rap id l y h eal s [,] ” an y erro r i s h arm l es s

. Ag ai n , J o n es was

p erm i t t ed t o t es ti fy

t hat ch i l d m o l es t at i o n v i ct i m s o ft en h ad n o p h y s ical i n ju ry

. See

11Go g

g i n s , 3 3 0 Ga. A p p. at 3 6 2 -3 6 3 (4 ) (g ). It is h i g h l y u n li k el y t h at Jo n es ’ ad d i t i o n al

s t at em en t reg ard i ng t h e reas o n fo r t h e l ack of p h y s i cal in ju ry co n t ri b u t ed t o t h e

v erd i ct

. See Qu ed

en s v. S t a t e , 2 8 0 Ga. 3 5 5

, 3 6 1 -3 6 2 (5 ) (6 2 9 SE2 d 19 7 ) (2 0 06 ) (erro r

i n ad m it t i n g l ay

t es t i m o ny

was h arm l es s wh ere t h ere was n o reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y

t h at t h e ad m i s s i o n o f t he ev i d en ce co nt ri b u t ed t o t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct ).

6

. Harri s al l eg es t h at t he t ri al co u rt was req u i red t o de cl are a m i s t ri al b as ed

u p o n t h e St at e’ s fai l u re t o p ro v i d e ex cu l p at o ry ev i den c e as req u i red b y Br a d y v.

Ma r yl a n d

, 3 73 U. S. 8 3 (8 3 SCt 1 19 4

, 1 0 LEd 2 d 2 15 ) (1 9 6 3 ). Du ri n g cl o s i n g

arg u m e n t

, t h e p ro s ecu t o r arg u ed t h at t h e v i ct i m ’ s y o u n g er s i s t er h ad b een

i n t erv i ewed

, b ut s h e di d n o t kn o w an y t h i n g

. Th e St at e h ad n ot p rev i ou s ly d i s cl o s ed

t o Harri s t h at t h e si s t er h ad been i n t erv iewed

. Acco rd i ng t o Harri s , t h e ev i d en ce was

ex cu lp at o ry b ecau s e t h e v i ct i m h ad s ai d h er s i s t er s aw Harri s rem o v e t h e v i ct i m ’ s

u n d erwear. Sp eci fi cal l y , Harri s arg u ed t hat t h e ev i d en ce co u l d b e u s ed t o i m p each t h e

v i ct i m ’ s t es t i m o n y

. 4 Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o ti o n fo r m i s t ri al

.

Th e Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s Br a d y h o l d in g req u i res t h e St a t e t o d i s cl o s e t o t h e

d efen d an t ev i d en ce th at is b o t h fav o rab l e t o t he a c c u s e d an d m at eri al t o g u i l t o r

4 A c c o r d i n g t o t he St at e, al t h o u g h t h e p ro s ecu t o r s p o k e to t h e s i s t er, n o

s t at em en t was t ak en

. Th e s i s t er was i n cl u d ed o n t h e l i s t o f p o ten t i al wi tn es s es , b u t s h e

was n ot cal l ed b y

t h e St at e.

12p u n i s h m en t

. Mo cl a i r e v. S ta te

, 2 1 5 Ga. A p p

. 3 6 0

, 3 6 0 (1 ) (4 51 SE2 d 68 ) (1 9 9 4 ).

“ Im p each m en t ev i d en ce, as wel l as ex cu l p at ory ev id en ce, fal l s wi t h in th e B ra d y ru l e.

Su ch ev i d en ce i s ev id en ce fav o rab l e t o an accu s ed

, s o t hat

, if d i scl o s ed an d u s ed

effect i v el y , i t m ay m ak e t h e d i fferen ce b et ween co n v i ct i o n an d acq u it tal .” (Ci t at i o n

an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Id

.

To p rev ai l o n a Br a dy cl ai m , [Harri s] m u s t s h o w t h at t h e St at e p o s s es s ed

ev i d en ce fav o rab l e t o h i m , t h at h e d i d n o t p o s s e s s t h e ev i d en ce an d

co u l d n o t o b t ai n it h i m s el f wi t h reas o n ab l e d il i g e n c e , t h at t h e St at e

s u p p res s ed t he fav o r a b l e ev i d en ce, an d t h at

, i f t h e ev i den ce h ad b een

d i s cl o s ed t o hi m , a reas o nab l e p ro b ab i l i t y ex i s t s th at t h e o ut co m e o f th e

p ro ceed i n g wo u l d h av e b een d i fferen t

.

(Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). G r a n t v. S t a t e , 2 9 5 Ga. 1 2 6 , 1 2 7 (2 ) (7 5 7 SE2 d 8 3 1 ) (2 0 1 4 ).

Harri s i s u n ab l e t o m eet t h i s b u rd en

. Harri s k n ew t hat t h e v i ct i m ’ s al l eg at i on s

i n v o l v ed act s of m o les tat i o n i n a ro o m t h e v i ct i m s hared wi t h h er s i s t er, an d t h e s i s t er

h ad b een li s t ed as a p o t en t i al wi t n es s at t ri al

. No t h i ng p rev en t ed Harri s fro m

i n t erv i ewi n g t h e s i s t er t o as cert ai n wh at

– i f an y t h i n g – sh e kn ew. Th e fact t h at t h e

St at e di d n o t cal l th e s i s t er t o t es t i fy s u g g es ts t h at t h e si st er k n ew n o th i n g ab o u t t h e

al l eg ed ab u s e. W h ere, as h ere, Harri s co u ld h av e d i sco v ered t h e al l eg ed i m p each m en t

ev i d en ce t h ro u g h th e ex erci s e o f d u e d i l i g en ce, h e h as s h o wn n o B r a d y v i o l at i o n

. See,

13S t a t e v. Ja mes , 2 92 Ga. 4 4 0

, 4 4 1 -4 4 2 (2 ) (7 3 8 SE2 d 6 0 1 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (n o Br ad y vi o l at i o n

wh ere St at e fai l ed t o p ro vi d e a p ag e fro m a rep o rt ; t h e p ag i n at i on m ad e cl ear t h e p ag e

was m i s si n g , an d a co -d efen d an t was ab l e t o o b t ai n t h e fu l l rep ort ).

Fu rt herm o re, b ecau s e t h e St at e d i s cl o s ed t h e i n fo rm at io n d uri n g cl o s i n g

arg u m en t

, t h is is n o t a cas e i n wh i ch t h e ev i d en ce was s u p p res s ed o r i n wh i ch t h e ju ry

was u n aware o f ev i d en ce. Cf. Do d d v. S ta t e , 2 9 3 Ga. Ap p

. 8 1 6

, 8 2 0 (2 ) (6 6 8 SE2 d

3 1 1 ) (2 0 0 8) (n o B r a d

y v i o l at i o n wh ere al leg ed l y ex cu lp at ory ev i d en ce was

i n t ro du ced at t ri al ). W e fai l t o see h ow t h e d i s cl o su re o f t h e i n fo rm at i o n b efo re t ri al

wo u l d h av e res u l t ed i n a d i fferen t res u l t

.

Fi n al l y , Harri s h as no t s h o wn t h at h e w as p reju d i ced b y t h e St at e’ s fai l u re to

d i s cl os e th e ev i d en ce s oo n er. Th e s is t er was o n ly fi v e y ears o l d w h en t h e m o l es t at i o n

t o o k p lace. Sh e m ay hav e s een Harri s r e m o v e t h e v i ct i m ’ s u n d erwear an d n ot

reco g n ized t he act as s i n i s t er. In d eed

, t h e v i ct i m t es t i fi ed t h at s h e at tem p t ed t o s h i el d

h er s i s t er fro m th e ab u s e i n o rd er t o p ro t ect h er. Al t h ou g h t h ere i s a p o s s i b i l i t y t h at

t h e s i s ter’ s s t at em en t m ay h av e u n d erm i n ed t h e v i ct i m ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y , t h e m ere

p o s s i b i l i ty th at t h e ev i d en ce m i g h t h av e ai ded th e d efen s e i s no t su ffi ci en t to es t ab l i s h

a B r a d y v i o l at i o n

. See Bel in s v. S t a t e , 21 0 G a. Ap p

. 25 9

, 2 6 0 (2 ) (4 3 5 SE2 d 6 7 5 )

(1 9 9 3). Acco rd i n gl y , t h i s arg u m en t p res en t s n o b as is fo r rev ers al

.

147

. Harri s co n t en d s t h at he i s e n t i t l ed t o a new t ri al g i v en t h e “ co l l ect i v e an d

cu m u l at i v e preju d ice” o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s erro rs

. Geo rg i a h as recen tl y ad o p t ed a

cu m u l at i v e erro r ru l e, s t a ti n g th at “ Geo rg i a co u rt s co n s i d eri n g wh et h er a cri m i n al

d efen d an t i s en t i t l ed t o a n ew t ri al s h o u l d co n s i d er co l l ect i v el y t h e preju d ici al effect

o f t ri al co u rt erro rs an d an y d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce by co u n s el

– at l eas t wh ere t h o s e

erro rs by t h e co u rt an d co u n s el in v o l v e ev i d en t i ary i s s u es .” See S t a t e v. La n e , 3 0 8 Ga.

1 0

, 14 (1 ) (8 3 8 SE2 d 8 0 8 ) (2 0 2 0 ). Here, Harri s h as n o t al l eg ed in effect i v e as s i s t an ce

o f co u n s el

, an d we hav e fo u n d t h at th e s o l e erro r th e t ri al co u rt m ay h av e co m m i t t ed

i n n o t cu rt ai li n g Det ect i v e Jo n es ’ s t es t i m o n y d id n o t co n t ri b u te t o t he v erd i ct

.

Acco rd in g ly

, H arri s h as no t s h own en t i t l em en t t o a n ew tri al b as ed u p o n cu m u l at i v e

erro r. S ho wer s v. S t a t e , 3 53 Ga. Ap p . 7 5 4

, 7 6 1 (2 ) (d ) (8 3 9 SE2 d 2 45 ) (2 0 2 0 ).

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Ba r nes , P. J., a n d

Go b ei l , J., co n cu r

.

15