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

, REESE and BROWN, 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

.

October 25, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A0 98 2 . RAM IREZ-ORTIZ v . THE STATE.

D O Y LE , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Fo l l owi n g h i s co n v i ct i o n s fo r t h ree co u n t s o f ch i l d m o l es t at i o n , 1 Dan i el

Ram i rez-Ort i z ap p eal s t h e d e n i al o f h i s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

. Ram i rez-Ort i z arg u es

t h at th e tri al co u rt erred becau s e (1 ) t he ev id en ce was i n su ffi ci en t t o s u p p o r t t h e

g u i l t y verd i ct

, (2 ) t ri al co u n s el was in effect i v e, (3 ) ad m i ss i o n o f h i s p ol i ce in t erv i ew

an d t h at o f t h e v i ct i m co n s t i t u t ed p l ai n err o r , an d (4 ) th e tri al co u rt erro n eo u s l y

ad m i t t ed o t h er act s ev i den ce u n d er OCGA § § 2 4-4 -4 0 4 (b ), 2 4 -4 -4 1 3

, an d 2 4 -4 -4 1 4.

Fo r t h e reas o n s t h at fo ll o w, we affi rm

.

1 OCGA § 1 6 -6 -4 (a) (1 ).Vi ewed i n t h e l ig h t m o s t fav orab l e t o t h e v erd i ct

, 2 t h e ev i den ce s ho ws t h at

Ram i rez-Ort i z ren t ed a ro o m fro m Paz an d Rau l Po nce i n Gwi n n et t Co u n t y

. Paz o ft en

cared fo r h er fi v e-y ear-o ld g ran d d au gh t er, Y. P. (“ th e v i ct i m ”), i n t h e h o m e. On J u n e

3 0

, 2 0 1 7

, t h e v ict i m t o l d I. G.

– Paz’ s d au g h t er-i n -l aw – t h at Ram i rez-Ort i z t o u ch ed

h er, g es t u ri n g t o “ [h ] er b u t t

, h er v ag i na, an d h er breas t s .” At I. G.’ s u rg i ng , t h e v i ct i m

t o l d h er m o t her, M

. M., t h at Ram i rez-Ort i z “ t o u ch ed ” h er, b u t s h e d i d n o t s peci fy t h e

l o cat io n o f t h e t o u ch in g at t hat t i m e. Th e v i ct i m l at er t o l d M. M

. t h at h e h ad t o u ch ed

h er “ beh i n d ” an d h er b reas t area.

M

. M

. cal l ed t h e p o l i ce t h e s am e d ay as t h e v i ct i m ’ s ou t cry , an d t h e v ict i m was

i n t erv i ewed b y p ol i ce. Bec a u s e t h e vi ct im s p o k e b o t h En g l i sh an d Sp an i s h

, a

b i l i n g u a l d et ect i v e (“ Det ect iv e F”) as si s t ed wi t h t h e in t erv i ew. A cco rd i n g t o a

cert ifi ed in t erp ret er wh o rev i ewed t h e s tat em en t

, th e v i ct i m s ai d t hat Ram i rez-Ort i z

t o u ch ed h er bu t t o ck s o r “ p o m p i t a” t h ree ti m es , h er v ag i na o n ce, an d h er ch es t o n ce.

Ap p ro x im at el y a y ear an d a h al f aft er t h e m o les t at i o n was rep o rt ed t o p o l i ce,

t h e vi ct i m ’ s u n cl e

– A nt h o n y Po n ce – as k ed t h e v i ct i m wh at h ad h a p p e n e d

. Wh i l e

cry in g , s h e t o l d hi m t h at Ram i rez-Ort i z t o u ch ed h er b u t t , h er v ag i n a, an d h er b reas t

area. Paz, wh o was p res en t

, y el l ed at t h e v i ct i m , cal l ed h er a l i ar, k i ck ed An t ho n y o ut

2 See Li b r i v. S t a t e , 3 46 Ga. Ap p . 4 2 0

, 4 2 1 (8 16 SE2 d 4 1 7) (2 01 8 ).

2o f t h e h o u s e a n d “ th reat en ed [h i m ] ,” t el li n g h i m “ Do n ’ t t el l t h em an y t h i n g.”

Acco rd in g t o An t ho n y , h i s p aren t s were “ s o s u p p o rt i v e” o f Ram i rez-Ort i z. An t h o ny

l at er t es t i fi ed at t ri al t h at h e o b serv ed Ram i rez-Ort i z “ t o u ch i n g [t h e v i ct i m ’s ]

s h o u ld ers an d g rab bi ng h er hai r an d s ay i n g real l y creep y t h in g s t o her” an d t o u ch i n g

h er l o w b ack “ p ret t y cl os e” t o h er b u t t o ck s

. A n t h on y al s o h eard Ram i rez-Ort i z t el l t h e

v i ct i m , “ [O] h , y o u ’ re g o i n g t o b e a b eau ti fu l wo m an .”

A f t e r o b s erv in g b eh av i o r ch an g es in t h e vi ct im

, in cl u d i n g decl i ni n g s ch o o l

p erfo rm an ce, freq u en t cry i n g , refu s al t o s l ee p a l o n e , ju m pi n es s aro u n d m al es , an d

cl i n g i n es s , t h e v i ct i m ’ s m ot h er t o o k h er t o s ee a t h erap i s t wh o s p eci al i zes i n t rau m afo cu s ed co g n i t iv e b eh av i o ral th era py

. T h e v ic tim t old the t herap i s t t h at Ram i rez-Ort i z

“ s q u eezed her b ot to m .” Acco rd i n g t o th e t h erap i s t

, t h e v ict i m s ai d t h at wh en s h e t o ld

h er gran dm o t h er, Paz res p on d ed

, “ He d i d n ’ t d o th at

. I d i dn ’ t s ee i t

. He di d n ’ t d o t h at .”

Paz al s o t o l d t h e v i ct i m t h at Ram i rez-Ort i z was i n jai l an d th at Paz wan t ed hi m t o b e

rel eas ed

.

Ram i rez-Ort i z was ch arg ed w i t h t h ree co u n ts o f ch i l d m o l es t at i o n

. Pri o r to

t ri al

, t h e St at e m o v ed t o ad m i t ev i d en ce o f p ri o r act s ag ai n s t o t h er v ict i m s p u rs u an t

t o OCGA §§ 2 4 -4 -4 0 4 (b ), 2 4 -4 -4 1 3, an d 2 4 -4 -4 1 4

. Fo l l owi n g a h eari n g , t h e t r i a l

3co u rt h el d t h at ev i d en ce of pri o r act s ag ai n st t h ree o f t h e o t h er v i ct i m s was

ad m i s s i b l e, an d i t ex cl u ded ev id en ce i n v o l v i n g a fo urt h p ers o n

.

At t ri al

, th e St at e in tro du ced t h e vi ct i m ’ s v i d eo t ap ed st at em en t t o p o l ice. 3 Th e

St at e al s o i n t ro d u ced an au d i o reco rd i n g o f Ram i rez-Ort i z’ s in t erv i ew wi t h p o l i ce,

w h i c h was al s o i nt erp ret ed by Det ect iv e F. Th e v i ct i m al s o t es t ifi ed

, s t at i n g t h at

Ram i rez-Ort i z “ t o u ch ed [h er]

. . [o ] n th e fro n t ,” i nd i cat i n g b y p o i n ti n g at h er b o d y

.

Th e p o l i ce i nv es t i g at or, t h e v i ct i m ’ s t h er a p i s t, An t ho n y Po n ce, an d o t h er

wi t n e s s e s al s o t es t i fi ed

, i n cl ud i n g t h ree s i m i l ar t ran s act i o n wi t n es s es

. Th e fi rs t

wi t n es s , B. M

., t es t i fi ed t hat w h e n s h e was ap p ro x i m at el y fo ur y ears o l d

, Ram irezOrt i z s at her o n h i s lap an d “ beg an t o t o uch [h er] i n ap p ro p ri at el y ”: h e “ pu t h i s h an d s

o n [h er] v ag i n a

. . . [an d ] was m o v i n g back an d fo rt h

, l i k e t h ru st i ng m o t io n s .” B. M

.

co u ld feel h i s p en is o n t h e o u t s i d e o f h er cl o t h i n g o n t h e s i d e o f h er b o t t om wh i l e h e

was t h ru st i n g

.

I. G. t es t i fi ed t h at i n No v em ber 2 0 1 1 , at a Th an k s g i v i n g g at h eri n g , Ram irezOrt i z t ou ch ed h er i n ap p ro p ri at el y t h ree ti m es

. Th e fi rs t t i m e, I. G. fel t h i m g rab h er

b u t t

, an d s h e as s um ed i t was an acci d en t

. Lat er t h at s am e d ay , h e “ l et h i m s el f fal l an d

g rab b ed [h er] ag ai n

. ” Th e t h i rd t i m e, h e cam e t o ward s h er “ real l y fas t ” an d t o u ch ed

3 Th e St at e fi l ed a p ret ri al n o t i ce o f i t s i n ten t t o ad m i t ch il d h ears ay ev i d en ce.

4h er v ag i n a as s h e b en t d o w n t o r e t r i ev e a b ab y b ag

. M

. M

., t h e v i ct i m ’ s m o t h er,

t es t i fi ed t h at i n 2 0 1 2 , Ram i rez-Ort i z s l ap p ed h er b u t to ck s wi t h h i s h an d.

At t h e co n cl u s i o n o f t h e t ri al

, t h e ju ry fo u n d Ram i rez-Ort i z g u il t y o n al l t h ree

co u nt s o f ch il d m o l es t at i on , an d h e w as sen t en ced t o ten y ears , t o s erv e n i n e in

co n fi n em en t

. Ram i rez-Ort iz m o v ed fo r a n ew t ri al

, wh i c h m o t i o n w as d en i ed i n a

d et ai led o rd er. Th i s ap p eal fo l l o wed

.

1

. Ram i rez-Ort i z co n t en d s t h a t t h e ev id en ce w as i n su ffi ci en t t o s u s t ai n h i s

co n vi ct i o n s , s peci fi cal l y arg u i n g t h at t h ere was no ev i d en ce th at h e act ed wi th

cri m i n al i n t en t . W e d i s ag ree.

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 he ev id en ce i n t h e l i g h t m o s t

fav o r ab l e t o t he v erd i ct

, an d t h e ap p el l an t n o l o n g er en jo y s t h e p res u m

p t i o n o f

i n n o cen ce. 4 W hen d et erm in i n g t h e su ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce, “ t h e rel ev an t q u es t i o n

i s wh et h er, aft er v iewi n g t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e p ro s ecu t i o n,

an y rat i o nal t ri er o f fact co u l d h av 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 r e as o nab l e d o u b t.” 5 Th e ap p el l at e co urt “ d o es n ot rewei g h ev i d en ce o r re s o l v e

4 See En g li s h v. S t a t e , 3 01 Ga. Ap p . 8 4 2 , 8 4 2 (6 8 9 SE2 d 1 30 ) (2 0 1 0 ).

5 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 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9).

5co n fl i ct s i n t es ti m o n y ; i n st ead

, ev i d en ce i s rev i ewed i n a l ig h t m os t fav orab l e t o t h e

v erd i ct

, wi th d e f

eren ce t o t h e ju ry ’ s as s es s m en t o f t h e wei g h t an d cred i b i li t y o f t h e

ev i d en ce.” 6

Pu rs uan t t o OCGA § 1 6 -6 -4 (a) (1 ), “ [a] p ers o n co m m i t s t h e o ffen s e o f ch i ld

m o les t at i o n wh en s u ch p ers o n

. . . [d ] oes an y i m m o ral or in decen t act t o o r i n t h e

p res en ce o f o r wi th an y ch i ld u n d er t h e ag e o f 1 6 y ears w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o aro u s e o r

s at i s fy th e s ex u al d es i res o f ei th er t h e ch i l d o r t h e p ers o n .” “ [T] he ev i d en ce o f t h e

v i ct i m al o n e i s s u f

fi ci en t t o au t h o ri ze t h e ju ry t o fi n d [a defen d an t ] g u i l t y o f ch i ld

m o les t at i o n . No req u i rem en t ex i s t s t h at t h i s t es t i m o n y b e co rro bo rat ed .” 7

In t h i s cas e, t h e v i ct i m t es t i fi ed t h at Ram i r e z

- O r t i z t o uch ed h er v ag i na,

b u t t o ck s , an d b reas t s

. T h i s t es t im o n y al o ne i s s u ffi ci en t t o s up p ort hi s co n v i ct i o n s fo r

ch i l d m o les t at i o n

. 8 W i t h reg ard t o i n ten t

, we n ot e t hat “ [t ] h e i n t en t wi t h wh i ch an act

6 (Ci t at i o n s an d p un ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Ha yes v. S t at e , 2 9 2 Ga. 5 0 6 (7 3 9 SE2 d

3 1 3 ) (2 0 1 3 ).

7 (Pu n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed .) Reyes v. S t a te

, 3 5 6 Ga. Ap p

. 3 4 6

, 3 47 (1 ) (8 4 7 SE2 d

2 5 ) (2 02 0 ), ci ti n g S

p r a d li n v. S t a t e , 2 6 2 G a

. Ap p. 8 9 7

, 8 98 (1 ) (5 8 7 SE2 d 1 5 5 ) (2 0 0 3).

8 See Reyes , 3 56 Ga. Ap p . at 3 4 7 (1 ).

6i s d o ne i s p ecu l i arl y a q u es t i o n o f fact fo r d et erm i n at i o n b y t h e ju ry

. In t en t

, wh i ch i s

a m en t al at t i tu d e, i s co m m o n l y d et ect i b l e o n l y i n feren t i al l y , a n d t h e l aw

acco m m o d at es t hi s .” 9 H ere, t h e v i ct i m t es t i fi ed t h at Ram i rez-Ort i z’ s t o u ch i n g m ad e

h er feel “ b ad ,” an d s h e c r i e d m o n t h s l at er wh en rel ay i n g t h e i n ci d en t t o h er u n cl e.

Th i s au t h o ri zed an i n feren ce t h at th e to u ch i n g was d i s t urb i n g t o h er b ecau s e i t was

s ex u al in n at u re an d n o t m erel y i n ci d en t al o r acci d en tal

. Gi v en t h e v i ct i m ’ s t es t i m o ny

an d o u t cry , i t can b e i n ferred t h at Ram i rez-Ort i z act ed wi t h t h e i n t e n t t o aro u s e o r

s at i s fy h i s s ex ual d es i res wh en h e t o u ch ed h er b reas t s , v ag i na, an d b u t t o ck s

. 1 0

2

. Ram i rez-Ort i z al l eg es t h at t h e tri al co u rt co m m i t t ed p l ai n erro r b y ad m i t t i n g

t h e v i ct i m ’s p o l i ce i n terv i ew an d h i s o wn p ol i ce in t erv i ew b ecau se h i s i n ab i l i ty to

cro s s -ex am i n e t h e b i l i n g u al p o l i ce o ffi cer wh o as si s t ed wi t h i n terp ret at i o n d u ri n g t h e

i n t erv i ews v io l at ed h i s Co n fro nt at i o n Cl au s e ri g h t s . W e fi n d n o b as i s fo r rev ers al

.

Ram i rez

- O r t i z c o n ced es t h at h e d i d n ot o b ject t o t h e ad m i ss i on o f h i s o wn

p o l i ce i nt erv i ew an d t h e v i ct i m ’ s p ol i ce i n t erv i ew o n Co n fro n tat i o n Cl au s e g ro u n d s ,

9 (Pu n ct u at io n om i t t ed .) Du va l l v. St a te

, 2 73 Ga. Ap p. 14 3

, 1 4 3 (1 ) (6 1 4 SE2 d

2 3 4 ) (2 0 0 5 ), q uo t i n g Ho wa rd v. S t a t e , 2 68 Ga. Ap p

. 5 5 8, 5 5 9 -5 60 (6 0 2 SE2 d 2 9 5 ) (2 0 0 4) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

1 0 See Ho wa rd

, 2 6 8 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 6 0

. See al s o Du va l l

, 27 3 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 4 3 (1 ).

7s o t h i s en u m erat i o n m u s t b e rev i ewed fo r p l ai n erro r. 1 1 Un der t h is s tan d ard

, Ram irezOrt i z

m u s t p o in t t o an erro r t h at was no t affi rm at i v el y w ai v ed

, t h e erro r m u s t

h av e b een cl ear an d n o t o p en t o reas o n ab le di sp u t e, t h e erro r m u s t h av e

affect ed h i s s u bs t an ti al ri g h ts

, an d t h e erro r m u s t hav e s eri o u sl y affect ed

t h e fai rn es s , i n t eg ri t y [,] o r p u b l i c rep ut at i o n o f ju d i ci al p ro ceed i ng s

. 1 2

As Ram i rez-Ort i z p o in ts o u t

, Co rp oral D

. W.

, t he l ead i n v es t i gat o r wh o

co n du ct ed t h e vi ct i m ’ s i n t erv iew, tes t i fi ed t hat t he b i l i n g u al d et ect i v e

– Det ect i v e F.

– w h o as s i s t e d wi t h t ran s l at i o n d u ri ng th e i n t erv iew was n o t a co u rt -cert i fi ed

i n t erp ret er, an d Det ect iv e F i n co rrect l y tran sl at ed s o m e o f t h e v i ct i m ’ s s t at em en t s

. As

a res ul t

, Co rp o ral D. W

. rev i ewed t h e v ict i m ’ s in t erv i ew wi th a cert i fi ed in t erp ret er,

an d D. W

. cl ari fi ed t h e m is i n t er p r et at i o n s at t ri al

. Du ri n g t h e t ri al

, d efen s e co u n s el

ad v is ed t h e t ri al co u rt o ut s id e t h e p res en ce o f t h e j u r y t h at al t h ou g h t he i n t erp ret er

wh o rev i ewed t h e vi ct i m ’ s st at em en t an d t h at o f Ram i rez-Ort i z fo u n d s o m e

1 1 See O CGA § 2 4 -1 -1 0 3 (d ) (“ No t h i n g i n t h i s Co d e s ect i o n s h al l p recl u d e a

co u rt fro m t ak i n g no t i ce of pl ai n erro rs affect i n g s u b s t an t i al ri g h ts al t h o u g h s u ch

erro rs were n o t b ro ug h t t o th e at t en t i o n o f t h e co u rt

. ”); Pen d er v. S t a te

, 3 11 Ga. 9 8,

1 1 4 (4 ) (a) (8 5 6 SE2 d 30 2 ) (2 02 1 ) (ap pl y i n g p l ai n erro r s tan d ard t o t h e ap p el l an t ’ s

u n p res erv ed Co n fro n t at io n Cl au s e cl ai m ).

1 2 (Pu n ct u at i on o m i t t ed .) Kemp v. S t a t e , 3 0 3 Ga. 3 85

, 3 9 7 -3 98 (3 ) (8 1 0 SE2 d

5 1 5 ) (2 0 1 8 ), q uo t i n g Lu

p o e v. S t a t e , 3 00 Ga. 2 3 3, 2 4 3 (4 ) (7 9 4 SE2 d 6 7 ) (2 0 1 6 ).

8i n accu raci es an d m i s in t erp ret at i o n s i n t h e t ran s l at i on , “ [t ] h ere i s n o t h in g m at eri al o f

i s su e wi th [Det ect iv e F]

. [Th e i n accu raci es d o ] n o t m at eri al l y ch an g e wh at [Det ect i v e

F] s t at es an d wh at ’ s i n t h i s d et ect i v e’ s rep o rt .” 1 3

Ram i rez-Ort i z arg u es t h at ad m i s s i o n o f t h e v i ct i m ’ s st at em en t was p l ai n erro r

b ecau s e h i s i n ab i li t y t o cro s s-ex am i n e Det ect i v e F v i ol at ed hi s Co n fro nt at i o n Cl au s e

ri gh t s. Pret erm i t ti ng w h et h er i t was a v i o l at i on o f Ram i rez-Ort i z’ s Si x t h Am en d m en t

ri gh t t o co n fro n t at i o n t o ad m i t t h e v i ct i m ’ s s t at em en t t hro u g h Co rp oral D. W .’ s

t e s t i m o n y reg ard i n g t h e i nt erp ret at i o n b y D et ect i v e F, Ram i rez-Ort iz h as fai l ed to

es t ab l i s h p l ai n erro r, 1 4 g i v en t h at t h e v i ct i m t es t i fi ed at tri al

, Ram irez-Ort i z’ s co u n s el

h ad t h e o p p o rt u n i t y t o cro s s -ex am i n e h er, t h e j u r y wa s m ad e aware o f t h e

i n co n s i s t en ci es in t he i nt erp ret at i o n , h i s tri al co u n s el co n ced ed t h at t h e i n accu raci es

i n th e t ran s lat i o n were n ot “ m at eri al ,” an d

, al t h o ug h a cert i fi ed i n t erp ret er t es t i fi ed at

t h e m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al h eari n g t h at t h ere were erro rs i n Det ect i v e F.’ s t ran s l at i o n s ,

1 4 See, e.g

. , Un i t ed S t at es v. Ch a r les

, 7 22 F3 d 1 3 1 9, 13 2 2 -1 3 3 1 (II) (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 3 ) (h o l d in g t hat al t h o u g h ad m i s si o n o f an o ffi cer’ s t es t i m o n y reg ard i n g an i n t erp ret er’ s s t at em en t s reg ard i n g wh at t h e d efen d an t s ai d v i o lat ed t h e d efen d an t ’ s Si x t h Am en d m en t ri gh t t o co n fro n t at i o n , t h e erro r was n o t p lai n b eca u s e t h ere was

n o b i n d i n g p reced en t h ol d i n g t hat th e i n t erp ret er was t h e d ecl aran t

, as o pp o s ed t o t h e d efen d an t ).

9t h ere was n o ev id en ce t h at t h e vi ct i m ’ s t ri al t es t i m o n y s u b s t an t i v el y co n fl i ct ed wi th

t h e p os t -t ri al in t erp ret er’ s t ran s l at i o n o f t h e v i c t i m ’ s s tat em en t i n a way t h at

u n d erm i n ed t h e v erd ict

. 1 5

S i m i l a rl y , t h ere i s n o ev i d en ce to s u gg es t t hat Det ect i ve F’ s t ran s l at i o n o f

Ram eri z-Co rt ez’ s s tat em en t was m at eri al ly inc or r e c t su ch t hat t h e o u t co m e o f t h e t ri al

wo u l d h av e d i ffered or t h at an y erro r i n ad m i t t i n g h is s t at em en t “ s eri o u s l y affect ed

t h e fai rn es s , i n t eg ri t y [,] o r p u b l i c rep u t at i o n o f ju d i ci al p ro ceed i ng s

. ” 1 6

Acco rd i ng l y , Ram i rez-Co rt i z h as n o t es t ab l i s h ed p l ai n erro r, an d th e t ri al co u rt

d i d n o t err b y

d en y i n g h i s m ot io n fo r n ew t ri al o n t hi s b as i s

.

3

. Ram i rez-Ort i z al s o co n t en d s t h at t ri al co u n s el was i n effect i v e by fai l i n g to

o b ject t o t h e ad m i ss i o n o f h i s s tat em en t t o p ol i ce an d th e v i ct i m ’ s p o li ce i n t erv i ew o n

l ack o f fo u n d at i o n an d Co n fro nt at i o n Cl au s e g ro u n ds

. W e fi n d n o bas i s fo r rev ers al

.

T o p rev ai l o n a cl ai m o f in effect i ve as s is t an ce o f co u n sel

, [a

d efen d an t ] m

u s t p ro v e b o t h d efi ci en t perfo rm a n ce an d res u l t i n g

p reju d i ce. To es t ab l i s h d efi ci en t perfo rm an ce, a d efen dan t m u s t s h o w

t h at h is t ri al co u n s e l p erfo rm ed i n an o b ject iv el y u n reas o nab l e way ,

co n s i d eri ng al l t h e ci r c u m s tan ces an d i n t h e l ig h t of p rev ai l i n g

1 5 See Ab er n at hy v. S t a t e , 3 5 7 Ga. Ap p . 7 3 2

, 7 3 4 (1 ) (8 4 9 SE2 d 4 8 9 ) (2 0 2 0 ).

1 6 Kemp , 3 0 3 Ga. at 3 9 8

.

10p ro fes s io nal n o rm s

. To es t ab l i s h p reju d i ce, a d efen d an t m u s t s h ow t hat

t h ere i s “ a reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at

, b u t fo r co u n s el ’ s u n p ro fes s i o nal

erro rs , t h e res u lt o f t h e pro ceed i ng wo u l d h av e b een di fferen t .” W e n eed

n o t ad d res s b o t h co m

p o n en ts o f th i s tes t i f a d efen d an t h as n o t p r o v ed

o n e o f t hem

. 1 7

Pret erm it t i n g wh et her t ri al co u n s el was i n effect i ve b y n o t ob ject i n g t o t h e

ad m i s s i o n o f t h e st at em en t s , Ram i rez-Co rt i z h as fai l ed t o es t ab l i s h p reju d i ce. Tri al

co u ns el t es t i fi ed at t h e m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al h eari n g t h at h ad h e o b ject ed t o t h e

ad m i s s i o n o f t h e s t at em en t s on t h e b as i s th at Det ect i v e F d i d n ot t es t i fy

, t h e St at e

wo u l d h av e cal l ed h i m as a wi t n es s , an d I d i d n ’ t wan t t h at t o h ap p en

. . . . I d i d n ’ t wan t

t h e d et ect i v e t o t es t ify s o I was n ’ t g o i n g to m ak e t h e o b ject i o n .” Tri al co u n s el fu rt h er

ex p lai n ed t h at b ecau s e t h e i n co n s i s t en ci es i n th e t ran s l at i o n s were “ m i n o r

. . . [

, ] I

t h i n k t h at w o u l d hav e b een an arg u m en t wi t h o u t a p u rp o s e. I d i d n ’ t wan t t o g i v e

[ Det ect i ve F] an o p p o rt u n i t y t o ex p l ai n m ore ab o u t wh at was s ai d an d c o n t i n u e t o

r e g u rg i t at e t he accu s at i o n s m ad e b y t h e ch i l d .” “ In g en eral

, a m at t er of reas o n ab l e

t ri al s t rat eg y d o es n o t am o u n t t o i n effect iv e as s i s t an ce o f co u ns el

. An d

, t h e d eci s i o n

1 7 (Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Ma r t i n v. S t at e , 3 1 0 G a. 6 5 8

, 6 6 5 ( 5 ) (8 5 2 SE2 d 8 3 4 ) (2 0 20 ), ci ti n g S t r i ckl a n d v. W a s hi n g t o n , 4 6 6 U

. S. 66 8

, 6 8 7 (1 0 4 SCt

2 0 5 2

, 8 0 LE2 d 6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 ), W a l ker v. S t a t e , 3 01 G a. 4 8 2, 4 8 9 (8 0 1 SE2 d 8 0 4 ) (2 0 1 7).

11n o t to o b

ject u su al l y is a m at t er o f s t rat eg y .” 1 8 Mo reo v er, as d i s cu s sed i n D i v i s i o n 2,

Ram i rez-Co rt i z has n o t sh o w n t h at t h e res u l t o f t h e t ri al w o u l d h a v e b een d i fferen t

h ad h e o b ject ed

.

Acco rd i ng l y , t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t err by d en y i n g th e m ot io n fo r n ew t ri al o n

t h e b as i s o f i n effect i ve as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el

.

4

. Fi n al l y , Ram i rez- C o r t e z al l eg es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y ad m i t t i n g

ev i d en ce o f th e p ri o r act s h e co m m i t t ed ag ai n s t B. M

. , I. G., an d M

. M. 1 9 Th i s

en u m erat i o n p ro v i d es n o b as i s fo r rev ers al

.

Pri o r t o t ri al

, t h e St at e fi l ed a n o t i ce o f i n ten t t o p res en t ev i d en ce o f p ri o r b ad

act s Ram i rez-Co rt ez had co m m i t t ed ag ai n s t B. M

. p u rs u an t t o O CGA § 2 4 -4 -4 1 4 (a)

(“ Ru l e 4 1 4 ”) an d ag ai n s t I. G. an d M

. M

. p u rs uan t t o OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 4 (b ) (Ru l e

4 0 4 ”). At t h e h eari n g , t h e St at e ad vi s ed t h e t ri al co u rt t h at i t s o u g h t t o u s e t h e p ri o r

act s ev i den ce t o s h o w ab sen ce o f m i s t ak e o r acci d en t

, m o t i v e, o p p o rt u n i ty

, in t en t

, an d

k n o wl ed g e. At t h e co n cl us i on o f t h e h e a r i n g, t h e t ri al co u rt fo u n d t h e ev i d en ce

ad m i s s i b l e t o p ro v e m o t i v e, k no wl ed g e, i nt en t , an d ab sen ce o f m i st ak e o r acci d en t

,

1 8 (Ci t at i o n s o m it t ed .) V

a n s t a ver n v. St a t e , 2 9 3 G a. 1 2 3

, 1 2 5 (3 ) (a) (7 4 4 SE2 d

4 2 ) (2 0 1 3 ).

1 9 Ram i rez-Co rt ez al s o arg ues t h at ad m i s s io n o f ev id en ce o f p ri o r a ct s h e

co m m i t t ed ag ai n s t E. D. was erro n eo u s . Bu t t h e t ri al co u rt ex cl u d ed t h at ev i d en ce.

12an d

, wi th reg ard t o B. M

. to p ro v e a d i s p o si ti o n t o ward s s ex u al co nd u ct wi t h m i n o rs

.

Th e co u rt ap p l i ed t h e b al an ci n g t es t req ui red b y OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 (“ Ru l e 40 3 ”), an d

fo u n d th at t h e p ro b at i v e val u e o f t h e ev i d en ce o u twei gh ed t h e ri s k o f u n fai r p reju d i ce,

ad m i t t i ng t h e ev i d en ce.

(a) Ext r in si c a ct i n vo lvi n g B. M. B. M

. t es t i fi ed th at ap p ro x i m at el y s ev en t een

y ears befo re t ri al

, wh en s h e was ap p ro x im at el y fo u r y ears ol d

, Ram i rez-Ort i z s at h er

o n h i s lap an d “ b e g a n t o t o u ch [h er] i n ap p ro p ri at el y ”; h e “ p u t h i s h an d s o n [h er]

v ag in a

. . . [an d ] w as m o v i ng b ack an d fo rt h

, l ik e th ru s t i n g m o t i o ns .” B. M. co u l d feel

h i s p en i s o n t h e o u t si d e o f her cl o t h i n g o n t h e s i d e o f her b u t t ock w h i l e h e was

t h ru s t i n g

. Ram i rez-Ort i z l iv ed wi t h B. M . an d h er fam i l y at t h e t i m e.

Ru l e 4 1 4 p ro v i d es : “ In a cri m in al pro ceed i n g in wh i ch t h e 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 i ss i o n o f an o t h er

o ffen s e o f ch i l d m o les t at i o n s ha l l b e a d mi s s i b l e an d m ay b e co n s i d ered fo r i t s b eari n g

o n an y m at t er t o wh i ch it is rel ev an t .” 2 0 Th i s p ro vi s i o n “ s up ers ed e[s ] t h e p ro v i s i on s

o f

. . . Ru l e 4 0 4 [] i n s ex u al as s au l t an d ch i l d m o les t at io n cas es an d creat e[s ] a ‘ ru l e

2 0 (Em ph as is s u pp l i ed ). A n “ o ffen s e o f ch i l d m ol es t at i on ” i s defi n ed as “ a n y

co n du ct o r at tem

p t o r co n s p i racy t o en g ag e i n . . . [a] n y cri m e t h at i n v o l v es co n t act b et ween an y p art o f t h e accu s ed ’ s b o dy

. . . an d t h e g en i t al s o r an u s o f a ch i l d [.] ” OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 1 4 (d ) (2 ).

13o f i n cl u s io n , wi t h a s t ro n g p res u m p t i o n in fav o r of ad m is s i b i l i t y

. . . . Th u s , t h e St at e

can s eek t o ad m i t ev i den ce un d er t h [i s ] p ro v is i o n [] fo r an y rel ev an t p u rp o s e,

i n cl u d i n g p ro p en si t y

. ” 2 1

As t h i s Co u rt h as h el d

, u n d er OC G A § 2 4 -4 -4 1 4 (a), sh o wi n g a

d i s p o s i t i o n t o ward [ch i ld ] m o l es t at i on i s a rel ev an t p u r p o s e an d n o t

u n fai rl y p reju d i ci al i n l i g h t o f th e n at u re o f th at co n d uct

. Th u s , ev i d en ce

t h at a d efen d an t en g ag ed i n ch i l d m o l es t at i o n i n t he p as t is ad m i ss i bl e

t o p ro v e t hat t h e d efen d an t h as a d i sp o s i t i o n o f ch aract er t h at m ak es i t

m o re l ik el y t hat h e d i d co m m i t t h e act of ch i ld m o l e s tat i o n ch arg ed i n

t h e i n s t an t cas e. E v en s o , ev i d en ce t h at i s ad m i s s ib l e u n der t h es e s tat u t es

m ay b e ex cl u d ed i f t h e t ri al co u rt co ncl u d es t h at i t s p ro b at i v e v al u e i s

s u b s t an t i al l y o u twei 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 i o n o f

t h e i s s ues , o r m is l ead i n g t h e ju ry

. Th e d et erm i nat i o n as t o wh et h e r t o

ex cl ud e ev i d en ce fo r an y o f t h es e reas o n s cal l s fo r a co m m o n s en s e

a s s es s m en t o f al l t h e ci rcu m s tan ces s u rro u n d i n g t h e p rev i o u s o ffen s e , i n cl u d i n g p ro s ecu t o ri al n eed

, o v eral l s i m i l ari t y bet ween th e p rev i o u s act

an d t h e ch arg ed o ffen s e, as wel l as t em p o ral rem o t en es s

. I n d eed

,

ex cl us io n o f o th erwi se p ro b at i v e an d rel ev an t ev i d en ce un 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 be us ed o n l y

s p ari n g l y

. Ul t i m at e l y , a t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n o n wh et h er t o ad m i t

2 1 (Ci t at i o n s an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed

. ) Di xo n v. S ta t e , 3 4 1 Ga. Ap p

. 2 5 5

, 2 5 8 (1 ) (8 0 0 SE2 d 1 1) (2 0 1 7 ), ci t i n g S t eel e v. S ta t e , 3 37 Ga. A p p

. 5 6 2, 5 6 6 (3 ), n .5 (7 8 8

SE2 d 1 4 5) (2 0 1 6), Do r i t

y v. S t a t e , 3 3 5 Ga. Ap p. 8 3, 9 5 (3 ) (7 8 0 SE2 d 1 2 9 ) (2 0 1 5 ).

14ev i d en ce u n d er o n e o f th es e s t at u t es wi l l b e o v ert u rn ed o n l y wh ere t h ere

i s a cl ear ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n

. 2 2

Here, t h e ev i d en ce o f Ram i rez-Ort i z’ s act i o n s ag ai n s t B. M . “ s h o wed t h at h e

h ad t h e p ro p en s it y , as w el l as t h e m o t i v e an d i n ten t

, t o en gag e i n o ffen s es o f ch i ld

m o les t at i o n , [an d th erefo re] t h e p ri o r o ffen s es ev id en ce m et t h e rel ev an cy

req u i rem en t o f Ru l e 4 14 (a).” 2 3

Ou r an al y s i s do es n o t en d t h ere, h o w ev er; “ we m u s t [al s o ] ev al u at e wh et h er t h e

t ri al co u rt ab us ed i t s d is cret i on u n d er Ru l e 4 03 i n ad m it t in g ev i den ce o f [Ram erezOrt i z’ s ] p ri o r [i n s t an ce] o f ch i l d m o l es t at i on .” 2 4 W h en “ rev i ewi n g t he ad m i s s i o n o f

ev i d en ce u n d e r Ru l e 4 0 3

, w e l o o k at th e ev i d en ce i n a l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o i t s

2 2 (Ci t at i o n s an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) S t at e v. McPh er s o n , 3 41 G a. Ap p

. 8 7 1,

8 7 4 -8 7 5 ( 8 0 0 SE2 d 3 8 9 ) (2 0 1 7 ). See Ol d s v. S t a te

, 2 9 9 G a. 6 5

, 7 6 (2 ) (7 86 SE2 d

6 3 3 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (“ W h en t h e fact fo r wh i ch t h e ev i d en ce i s o ffered i s u n d i s p u t e d o r n ot

reas on ab l y s u s cep t ib l e o f d i s p u t e, t h e l es s t h e p ro b at iv e v al u e o f t h e ev i d en ce. [In

c o nt ras t ,] t h e m ore s t ro ng l y an i s s u e i s co n t es t ed

, t h e g reat er t h e ju s t i fi ca t i o n f o r ad m i t t i ng ot h er act e v i d e n ce b eari n g o n t h e p o i n t .”) (ci t at io n , p un ct u at i o n an d
fo o t n o t e o m i tt ed ).

2 3 W i l s o n v. S t a t e ,

_

_ _ G a.

_ _ _,

_ _ _ (1 ) (d ) (8 6 0 SE2 d 4 8 5 ) (2 0 2 1 ), ci t i n g Di xo n , 3 5 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 1 3 -2 1 4 (1 ) (h o l d i n g t h at ev i d e n c e of a p ri o r ch i ld

m o les t at i o n was rel ev an t t o sh o w “ i n t en t

, i d e n t i t y , an d p ro p en s it y to co m m i t t h e cri m es ”).

2 4 W i l s o n , _

_ _ Ga. at

_

_ _ (2 ).

15ad m i s s i o n , m ax i m i zi ng i t s p ro b at i v e v al u e an d m i n i m i z i n g i t s u n d ue p reju d i ci al

i m p act .” 2 5

Fu rt her, wh en ap p ly i n g Ru l e 4 0 3 b al an ci n g t o ev i den ce o f p ri o r o ffen ses

o f ch i l d m o l es t at i o n , th e co u rt m u s t t ak e i n t o acco u n t t h at s uch ev i d en ce

i s n at u ral l y p reju d i ci al

. Ho wev er, g en erally

, it is not u n fa i r l y p reju di ci al ;

rat h er i t i s p reju d i ci al fo r t he s am e reas o n i t i s p ro b at i v e: i t t en d s t o

p ro v e t h e d efen dan t ’ s p ro p en s i t y t o m o l es t ch i l d ren . . . . Fi n al l y , wh en

ap p l y i n g Ru le 4 0 3 b al an ci n g t o p ri o r ch i l d m o l es t at i o n o ffen s es , t h e t ri al

co u rt m u s t m ak e a co m

m o n s en s e as s es s m en t of al l t h e ci rcu m s tan ces

t h at m ay l o g i cal l y b ear o n t h e p ro b at i v e o r p reju d i ci al v al ue o f th e

ev i d en ce, in cl u d i n g t h e n eed fo r th e ev i d en ce, t h e o v eral l si m i lari t y

b et ween th e p ri o r o ffen s es o f m o l es t at i o n an d t h e ch arg ed co n d u ct

, an d

t h e t em p o ral rem o t en es s o f t h e p ri or o ffen ses

. 2 6

Ram i rez-Ort i z arg u es t hat t h e p reju d i ci al effect of t he ev i den ce o f t he p ri o r act s

ag ai n s t B. M

. o u t w ei gh ed i t s p ro b at i v e v al u e b ecau se (1 ) t h e St at e fai l ed t o p ro v i d e

a p ro s ecu t o ri al n eed fo r t h e ad m i s s i o n o f t h e ev i d en ce reg ard i n g B. M .; (2 ) t h e p ri o r

act s w ere i ns u ff

i c i e n t l y s i m il ar t o t h e ch arg ed act s ; an d (3 ) t h e p ri or act s w ere t o o

t em p o ral l y rem ot e. W e d i s ag ree.

2 5 Mo r ga n v. S ta t e , 3 0 7 Ga. 8 8 9 , 8 97 -8 9 8 (3 ) (d ) (8 3 8 SE2 d 8 7 8 ) (2 0 2 0 ).

2 6 (Ci t at i o n s o m i t ted ; em

p h as i s s u p pl i ed .) W

i l s o n , _

_ _ Ga. at

_

_ _ (2 ).

16( i ) Pr o s ecu t o r i a l n eed

. Ram i rez-Ort i z arg ues t h at becau s e t h ere was n o

al l eg at i o n t h at h e acci d en t al l y o r m i s t ak en l y t o u ch ed t he v i ct i m an d h e m ad e n o s u ch

cl ai m , t h e St at e fai l ed t o d em o n s t rat e t h at t h e ev i d en ce o f t h e p ri o r act s ag ai n s t B. M

.

was rel ev an t fo r t he p urp os e o f s h o w i n g acci d en t o r ab s en ce o f m i st ak e. Bu t

reg ard l es s of wh et h er Ram i rez-Ort i z a r g u ed th at t h e t o uch in g was an acci d en t

, t h e

St at e w a s s t i l l req u i red t o sh o w t hat h i s act i on s were i n ten t i o n al

. An d

, as t h e t ri al

co u rt co n cl u d ed

, t he ev i d en ce al s o d em o n s t rat ed m o ti v e an d k no wl ed ge.

Acco rd in g ly

, “ t h e t ri al co u rt was au t h o ri zed t o fi n d t h at t h e p ro s ecu t o r’ s n eed

i n creas ed t h e p ro b at i v e v al ue o f t h e p ri o r ch i ld m o l es t at i o n ev i d en ce.” 2 7

( i i ) S i mi l a r i t

y o f th e p r i o r a ct

s t o t h e ch a rg ed of

f en s es

. In bo t h t he p ri o r a c t

i n v o l v i n g B. M

. an d t h e ch arg ed cri m e, Ram i rez-Ort i z t o u ch ed t h e y o u n g g irl s (fo u r

an d fi v e y ears of ag e, res pect i v el y ) i n a h o m e w h ere h e l i v ed ; he t o u ch ed B. M

. o n h er

v ag in a, an d h e t o uch ed t h e v i ct i m i n t h e in s t an t cas e o n h er v a g i n a, b u t t o ck s , an d

b reas t s

. Acc o r d i n g l y, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t ab u se i t s d i s cret i o n b y fi n di n g t h at t h e

i n ci d en t s were s u ffi ci en t l y s i m i l ar. 2 8

2 7 Id . at

__

_ (2 ) (a) (i v ).

2 8 See Di xo n , 3 4 1 Ga. Ap p

. at 26 2 (1 ) (b ) (h o ld i n g t h at pri o r m o l es t at i o n s were

s u ffi ci en t l y s i m i l ar to t h e ch arg ed o ffen s e s becau s e each i n v o l v ed “ i nap p ro p ri at e

s ex u al co n d u ct ” b et ween t h e d efen dan t an d a s i m i l arl y ag ed ch i l d ); Eu b a n ks v. S t a t e ,

17(i ii ) Temp o r a l r emo t en es s

. Th e 1 7 -y ear g ap b et ween Ram i rez-Ort i z’ s act i on s

ag ai n s t B. M

. an d t h e v i ct i m i n t h i s cas e was rel at i v el y l o ng . Bu t

Ru l e 4 1 4 i m

p o s e s n o ti m e l i m i t o n p ri o r o ffen s es fo r wh i ch ev i d en ce

m ay b e ad m i t t ed

, al t h ou gh rem o t en es s i n t i m e m ay d ecreas e pro b at iv e

v al u e u n der Ru l e 4 0 3. Su ffi ci en t fact u al s i m i l ari t y o f p ri o r ch i l d

m o l es t at i o n o ffen ses t o th e ch arg ed o ffen se can o u t wei g h co n cern s o f

rem o t en es s i n t i m e. As a p ract i cal m at t er, ev i den ce o f ot h er sex o ffen ses

b y t h e d efen d an t i s o ft en p ro b at i v e an d p r o p e rl y ad m i t t ed

,

n o t wi t hs t an d i n g v ery s u b s t an t i al l ap s es o f t i m e i n rel at i o n t o th e ch arg ed

o ffen s e or offen s es

. In t h i s cas e, th e s u b s t an t i al s i m i l ari ti es b et ween th e

p ri o r offen ses o f c h i l d m o l es t at i o n an d t h e ch arg ed o ffen s es , as ju s t

d i s cu s s ed

, al l o wed th e tri al co u rt t o as si g n s u b s t an t i al p ro b at i ve v al ue

t o t h e p ri o r o ffen s es , d es p i t e t h e l ap s e i n t i m e. 2 9

Co n si d eri ng “ t h e ev id en ce p res en t ed o n each o f t h e ab ov e fact o rs an d v i ewi n g

t h e ev i d en ce, as we m

u s t

, i n t h e l i g h t m os t fav o rab l e t o i t s ad m i s s i o n , we can n o t s ay

t h at t h e tri al co u rt ab u sed i t s d i s cret i o n i n d et erm i n i n g t hat t h e p ro b at i v e v al u e o f t h e

3 3 2 Ga. Ap p

. 5 6 8

, 56 9 -5 7 0 (1 ) (7 7 4 SE2 d 1 4 6 ) (2 0 15 ) (h o l d i n g t h at p ri o r act s were

s u ffi ci en t l y s im i lar t o t he ch arg ed o ffen s es b ecau se each i n v o l ved act s ag ai n s t m i n o r

g i rl s o f s i m i l ar ag es an d h ad s im i l ar al l eg at i o ns ).

2 9 (Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) W i l s on , _

_ _ Ga. at

_ _ _ (2 ) (a) (i i i ).

18p ri o r ch i l d m o les tat i o n ev i d en ce was no t s u b s t an ti al l y o ut wei g h ed b y t h e d an g er o f

u n fai r p reju d i ce.” 3 0

(b ) Ext r i n s ic a ct

s i n vo l vi n g I. G. a n d M

. M

. At t ri a l

, I. G. t es t i fi ed t h at in

No v em b er 2 0 1 1

, wh en s h e was n i n et een o r t wen t y y ears o l d, Ram i rez-Ort iz t o u ch ed

h er i n ap p ro p ri at el y t h ree t i m es at a T h an k s gi v i n g g at h eri n g at Paz’ s h o us e. Th e fi rs t

t i m e, Iri s fel t h im g rab h er b u t t

, an d s he as s u m ed i t w as an acci d en t

. Lat er t h at s am e

d ay , he “ l et h i m s el f fal l an d g rab b ed [h er] ag ai n

. ” Th e t h i rd t im e, h e cam e t o ward s h er

“ real l y fas t ” an d t o u ch ed her v ag i n a as sh e b e n t d o w n t o ret ri ev e a b ag

. M

. M

., t h e

v i c t i m ’ s m o th er, t es t i fi ed t h at i n 2 0 1 2

, wh en s h e was ap p ro xi m at el y 3 2 y ears o l d

,

Ram i rez-Ort i z s l ap ped h er b u tt o ck s wi t h h i s h an d at a p art y at Paz’ s h o u s e.

Un d er Ru l e 4 0 4 (b ),

[e] v i d e n ce o f o th er cri m es , wro ng s , or act s s h al l n o t b e ad m i s s i bl e t o

p r o v e t h e ch aract er o f a p ers o n i n o rd er t o s h o w act i o n i n co n fo r m i t y

t h erewi th

. It m ay , h o wev er, b e ad m i s s ib l e fo r o t h er p urp o s es , i n cl ud i n g , b u t n o t l im i t ed t o , p ro o f o f m o t i v e, op p o rt u n i t y , i n t en t

, prepa r a ti o n , p l an , k n o wl ed g e, i d en t i t y , o r ab s en ce o f m i st ak e o r acci den t

. . . .

Th e part y o fferi n g ev i d en ce u n d er Ru l e 4 0 4 (b ) m u s t s h o w t h ree

t h i n gs : (1 ) t h at t h e ev id en ce i s rel ev an t t o an i s s ue i n t h e cas e o t h er t h an

3 0 Id

.

19t h e d efen d an t ’ s ch aract er; (2 ) t h at t h e p ro b at i v e val u e o f t h e ev i d en ce i s

n o t s u b s t an t i al l y o ut w ei gh ed b y i t s u n d u e p reju d i ce; an d (3 ) t h at t h ere

i s s u ffi ci en t p ro o f fo r a ju ry t o fi n d b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce

t h at t h e d efen dan t co m

m i t t ed t h e o t h er act

. 3 1

Th e rel ev an ce an al y s i s i n t h e fi rs t p art i s g ov ern ed b y

OCGA § 24 -4 -4 01 (“ Ru l e 4 0 1 ”), wh i ch d efi n es “ rel ev an t ev i d en ce” as

ev i d en ce t h at “ h as an y ten d en cy t o m ak e t h e ex i s ten ce o f an y fact t hat

i s o f co ns eq u en ce t o t h e d et erm i n at i o n o f t h e act i o n m o re p ro b ab l e o r

l es s pro b ab l e t h an i t wo u l d b e wi t ho u t t h e e v i d e nce.” Th i s i s a b i n ary

q u es t i o n —

ev i d en ce i s ei t h er rel ev an t o r i t i s n o t

. 3 2

Fo r t h e s eco n d p art o f t h e t e s t

, w e a p p l y t h e b al an ci n g t es t s et fo rt h in Ru l e 4 0 3,

w h i ch we h av e ad d res s ed i n Di v i s i o n 4 (a), s u p ra. 3 3 “ Th e t h i rd p art o f t he t es t i s a

p rel i m i nary q u es t io n o f fact fo r t h e t ri al co u rt

. Ot h er act s ev i d en ce m ay b e ad m i t t ed

i f t h e co u rt co n cl u d es t h a t t h e e v i d en ce i s s u ffi ci en t fo r t h e ju ry t o fi n d b y a

p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev i d en ce t h at t h e o t h er act w as co m m i t t ed

. ” 3 4 [A] t ri al co urt ’ s

3 1 S t r o n g v. S t a t e , 3 0 9 Ga. 2 95 , 3 0 0 (2 ) (a) (8 4 5 SE2 d 6 5 3 ) (2 0 2 0).

3 2 Id . at 30 1 (2 ) (a).

3 3 See i d

.

3 4 (Pu n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Id

.

20d eci s i o n t o ad m i t ev i d en ce pu rs u an t t o OCGA § 24 -4 -4 0 4 (b ) i s rev i ewed fo r a cl ear

ab u se o f d i s cret i o n

. . . .” 3 5

In t h i s cas e, Ram i rez-Ort i z d o es n o t arg u e t h at t he St at e fai l ed to s at i s fy t h e

t h i rd part o f t he Ru l e 4 04 (b ) t es t

. Acco rd i n g l y , we fo cu s o u r an al y s i s o n t h e fi rs t t wo

p art s

.

(i ) Rel eva n ce

. “ Ev i den ce t h at ten d s t o p ro v e [Ram i rez- O r t i z ’s ] in t en t i n t h i s

cas e co u l d b e rel ev an t b ecau s e h e p u t h i s i n t en t at i s s u e b y p l ead i n g n o t g ui l t y , an d

h e d i d n o t t ak e an y affi rm at i v e s t ep s t o rel i e v e th e St at e o f i t s b u rd en t o p ro v e

i n t en t .” 3 6 An d i f a d efen d an t ’ s i n t en t t o co m m i t t h e ch arg ed o ffen se i s at i s s u e, “ t h e

rel ev an cy o f t he ex tri n si c o ffen s e d eri v es fro m th e d efen d an t ’ s i n d u l gi n g h im s el f in

t h e s am e s t at e of m in d i n t h e p erp et rat i o n o f b ot h t h e ex t ri n s ic an d ch arg ed offen s es

.

Th e reas on i ng i s t h at b ecau s e t h e d efen d an t had u n l awfu l i n t en t i n t h e e x t ri n s i c

o ffen s e, i t i s l es s l i k el y t hat h e had l awfu l i n ten t i n t h e p res en t o ffen s e.” 3 7 “ W h ere t h e

s t at e o f m i nd req u i red fo r bo t h o ffen s es is th e s am e, th e ex t ri n s i c cri m e is rel ev an t to

3 5 Br a n n o n v. S t a t e , 2 9 8 Ga. 6 0 1 , 6 06 (7 8 3 SE2 d 6 4 2 ) (2 0 1 6 ).

3 6 Ki r b y v. S ta te , 3 0 4 Ga. 4 7 2, 4 8 0 (4 ) (a) (8 19 SE2 d 4 6 8 ) (2 0 1 8).

3 7 (Pu n ct u at i o n o m i tt ed .) Id

., q u o t i n g Un i t ed St at es v. Beech u m , 5 82 F2 d 8 9 8,

9 1 1 (5 th Ci r. 1 9 78 ).

21t h e ch arg ed o ffen se.

. . . T h e t e s t i s t o as k : u n d er t h e fact s o f th e cas e, i s t h ere a n y

d an ger t hat a rat i o n al ju ry co u l d fi n d t h at a l t h o u g h t he d efen d an t co m m i t t ed t h e

o b ject i ve, ch arg ed act s, h e d i d n o t i n t en d t o d o s o ? ” 3 8

Here, t h e St at e was req u i red t o p ro v e t h at Ram i rez-Ort iz co m m i t t ed t h e act s

ag ai n s t th e v ict i m wi th th e in t en t t o aro u s e hi s o wn s ex u al des i res

. 3 9 S i m i l a r l y, t h e

St at e h ad t o o v erco m e p o t en ti al d efen s es o f acci den t or m i s t ak e. T he ex tri n s i c act s

ag ai n s t I. G. an d M

. M

. are rel ev an t t o s h o w in t en t an d t o s i m i l arl y s h o w an ab s en ce

o f m is t ak e o r acci d en t an d m o t i v e. An d b ecau s e t h e v i c t i m ’ s y o u ng ag e at t h e t i m e

o f t h e al l eg ed o ffen s es an d at t ri al i m p act ed b o t h h er m em o ry an d h er i n t erp ret at i o n

o f Ram i rez-Ort i z’ s m o t i v e a n d i n t en t

, t h e rel ev an cy o f t h e ex t ri n s i c ev i d en ce was

i n creas ed

.

(i i) 4 0 3 B a l a n ci n g Tes t

. “ [W ] e fi n d n o bas i s i n th e reco rd t o s u p p o rt t h e

ex t rao rd i n ary rem ed y o f ex cl ud i n g t h i s ev i den ce as u n d u l y p reju di ci al un d er OCGA

§ 2 4 -4 -4 0 3

, p art i cu l arl y gi v en th e s t ro n g s tat u to ry p res u m pt i o n o f ad m i ss i bi l i t y an d

3 8 (Ci t at i o n s an d pu n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ; em p h as i s i n o ri g i n al .) Ch

y n o w et h v. S t a t e , 33 1 Ga. Ap p

. 1 2 3

, 1 2 8 (3 ) (7 6 8 SE2 d 5 3 6 ) (2 0 1 5 ), q u o ti n g U n i t e d S t a t es v. Za p a t a , 1 3 9 F3 d 1 3 5 5

, 1 3 5 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 9 8), Pau l S. M il i ch

, Ga. Ru l es o f Ev i d en ce, § 1 1: 1 3, p . 3 2 1 (2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5 ).

3 9 See OCGA § 16 -6 -4

.

22i n li g h t o f t he cl o s e s i m i l ari t i es b et ween th e cri m es at i s s u e.” 4 0 Al t h o u g h th e ex t ri n s i c

act s o ccu rred ag ai n s t wo m en , as o p p o s e d t o t h e ch i l d v i ct i m i n t h e i n s t an t cas e, al l

t h ree ca s es i n vo l v ed wh at ap p eared t o b e s u rrep ti t i o us t o u ch i n g o f t h e b ut t o ck s an d / o r

v ag in as o f fem al e v ict i m s , o v er t h ei r cl o t h i n g , i n Ram i rez-Ort i z’ s h o m e, i n a m an n er

t h at Ram i rez-Ort i z c o u l d as sert was acci d en t al o r i n ci d en t al

. An d as t h e t ri al co u rt

fo u n d, “ [t ] h ere has b een n o s ho wi n g th at t h e ev i d en ce wo u l d co n fu s e th e i s s u es ,

m i s l ead t h e ju ry , was te t i m e, or b e cu m u l at i v e o f ot h er ev i d en ce, o r t h at t h e pro b at i v e

v al u e o f t h e ev id en ce wo u ld o t h erwi s e b e s u b s t an t i al l y o ut w ei g h ed b y i t s p reju d i ci al

i m p act .” 4 1

Acco rd i ng l y , w e fi n d no cl ear erro r i n t h e t ri al co urt ’ s fact u a l f i n d i ng s

reg ard i n g t h e ex t ri n s i c act s an d n o ab u se o f d is cret i o n i n i t s ru l i n g t o ad m i t t h em

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Rees e a nd

Br o wn
, JJ., co n cu r

.

4 0 (Pu n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) McPh er s o n , 3 41 Ga. Ap p. at 8 75 (1 ).

4 1 (Pu n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Id

.

23