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 lly 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

A pr i l 12, 2024



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

A 24A 0 543. CULV ERSON v . TH E STA TE.
H O D G E S , J u d ge. Fo llo w ing a j u ry trial, the Su p erio r Co urt o f D ec atu r Co u n ty entered a j u d gment o f c o nv ic tio n against D aniel Ed ward Cu lv erso n f o r o ne co u nt eac h o f
inv a sio n o f p r iv ac y ( OCGA § 1 6

- 1 1

- 6 2 ( 2) (A )) a nd s exu al battery against a c hild u nd er
1 6 (OCGA § 1 6

- 6

- 22. 1 (b)). Cu lv e r so n ap p eals f ro m the trial co u rt’ s denial o f his

mo tio n f o r new trial as amend e d , argu ing t hat the ev id enc e w as insu f f ic ient to su p p o rt his c o nv ic tio ns, that the trial c o u rt erred in a llo w ing the j u ry to rev iew an exhibit af ter the c lo se o f the ev id enc e, and that the c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t o f the trial c o u rt’ s erro rs entitles him to a new trial. Find ing no erro r, w e af f irm.V iew ed in a light mo st f av o rable t o the v erd ic t , 1 t he e vid enc e ad d u ced at trial

rev ealed that Cu lv erso n telep ho ned 9 1 1 o n Sep t ember 1 1 , 2020, to c o mp lain that his girlf riend , L. S. , w as f

o rc ing him to leav e the D ec atu r Co u nty resid enc e they shared

w ith her tw o dau ghters, D

. S. and M

. S. W hen an inv estigato r a rriv ed and sp o k e w ith
L. S. , he learned t hat she had rec eiv ed mu ltip le t e xt messages f ro m D

. S. ac c u sing
Cu lv erso n o f d o ing “ the same thing that he w a s d o ing to [D

. S. ]” t o M

. S. and stating

to L

. S. , “ yo u ’ re go ing to d o so mething abo u t it o r I ’ m go ing to d o so mething abo u t it. ” L. S. retu rned ho m e, c o nf ro nted Cu lv erso n, and o r d e red Cu lv erso n to leav e,

w hic h p r omp ted his 9 1 1 c a ll.
L. S. stated that her d au ghters had mad e allegatio ns against Cu lv erso n “ years bef o re,” bu t t hat she had no t tak en any ac tio n. On o ne o c casio n, D

. S

. to l d her that
Cu lv erso n texted her, saying, “if yo u k eep w earing tho se bo o ty sho rts, y o u’ re go ing

to get w hat yo u w ant. ” L. S. c o nf ro nted him and “k ic k ed him o u t o f the ho u se[,]” bu t the co u p le rec o nc iled

. Other allegatio ns inc lu d ed Cu lv erso n hid ing in the d au ghters’

c lo sets w hile they s ho w e r e d a n d lo ok ing at t he d au ghters thro ugh their bed ro o m

w ind o ws. Of p a rtic ular r elev a nc e t o this ap p eal, the dau ghters to ld L. S. that w hen

1 See Ro gers v . S ta te , 36 9 Ga. A p p. 543 (89 4 SE2d 85) (2023).
2they w o uld get o u t o f the sho wer, they wo u ld see a “little snak ehead ” c amera u nd er

the bathro o m d o o r. I n an attemp t to sto p the c amera, the girls w o u ld e ither to ss to w els

o n to p o f the c amera o r stu f

f to w els u nd er the d o o r bef o re sho wering.
A f ter sp eak ing w ith L. S. , the inv estigato r then met w ith M . S. and D. S. The girls’ rep o rts were similar, bu t m o r e d etailed

. M. S. also rev ealed that Cu lv erso n

w o u ld to u c h her breasts w hen he w o u ld slip mo ney into her bra. M

. S. later f ou nd the

c amera u sed u nd er the bathro o m d o o r hid d en in Cu lv erso n’ s bed ro o m . Finally, the
inv e stigato r sp ok e w ith Cu lv erso n, w ho d enied the girls’ ac c usatio ns and maintained the girls w e re lying, p artic u larly abo u t him hid ing in the c lo set.
A t trial, t he girls’ u nc le (L. S. ’ s bro ther) testif ied that he no tic ed a c hange in the girls’ behav io r in the years lead ing u p t o Sep tember 2020. D u ring t hat time, the girls

ev entu ally rep o r t e d C u l v e rso n’ s c o nd u c t to the u nc le, w ith M

. S. telling him that
Cu lv erso n w o u ld hid e in the bu shes o u t s id e her w ind ow and lo o k insid e and that D

. S. d isc o vered C u l v e rso n hid ing in her c lo set when she c ame into her bed ro o m af ter sho w e r ing. The u nc le angrily c o nf ro nted L. S. , telling her that she need ed to “ c all the
law ” and that “ [s]o mething need s to be d o ne abo ut this[;]” in resp o nse, L

. S. stated

3o nly that “ s he w as go ing to d o her o w n inv estigatio n. ” W hen the u nc le c o nf ro nted
Cu lv erso n, Cu lv erso n’ s o nly resp o nse w as that L. S. “ w o u ld be mad

. ”
D

. S. testif

ied t hat C u l v e r s o n to o k her c lo thes o ut of the b athro o m w hile she
sho w e r e d , requ iring her to r etu rn to her b ed ro o m w earing o n l y a t o w el; Cu lv erso n

w o u ld hid e in the c l o s e t o r b e tw een her bed and the w all to w atc h her remo v e her

to wel. She also s tat e d t h a t C u lv erso n inserted a c amera u nd er the bathro o m d o o r

w hile she sho w ered and t hat s he d isc o v ered the c amera w hen she go t ou t o f the
sho w e r . I n ad d itio n, she testif ied that Cu lv erso n w o u ld hid e in the b u shes o u tsid e her
b e d ro o m w ind o w . M

. S. testif ied that she a lso saw the c amera u nd er the bathr o o m d o o r w hen she w as sho wering and that Cu lv erso n t ou c hed her breasts and tried to p u t

mo ney in her bra. Fo r his p art, Cu lv erso n denied any w ro ngd o ing a nd t estif ied that the allegatio ns against him w ere in retaliatio n f o r serv ing as the v ic tims’ d isc ip linarian.
A D e c atu r Co u nty grand j u ry i n d i c t e d Cu lv erso n f o r three co u nts o f c hild

mo lestatio n, t w o c o u nts eac h o f entic ing a c hild f o r ind ec ent p u rp o ses and inv asio n

o f p riv ac y , and o ne c o unt o f sexu al b at t e r y a gainst a c hild u nd er 16

. The trial c o urt d irec ted a v erd ic t o f a c qu ittal o n the tw o c o unts o f entic ing a c hild f or ind ec ent
p u rp o ses and o n o ne c o u nt o f inv asio n o f p riv a cy, and the j u ry f

o u nd Cu lv erso n no t

4gu ilty o f the c h i ld m o lestatio n c o u nts. The j u ry retu rned v erd ic t s o f gu ilty against

Cu lv erso n o n the remaining c o u nts o f inv asio n o f p riv a c y and sexu al battery against

a c hild u nd er 1 6 , a n d t h e trial c o u rt denied Cu lv e rso n’ s mo tio n f o r new trial as amend ed

. This ap p eal f

o llo w s . 1

. In tw o related enu meratio ns o f erro r, Cu lv erso n c ontend s that the ev id enc e

w as insu f f ic ient to su p p o rt his c o nv ic tio ns and t h a t his mo tio ns f or direc ted v erd ic t

o n the tw o c harges f

o r w hic h he w as c o nv ic ted sh o u l d h a v e b een granted

. We
d isagree.
Und er Geo r gia law , [i]t is w ell settled that the stand ard o f rev iew f o r the d enial o f a m o t io n f o r a d irec te d v erd ic t o f ac qu ittal is the same as f o r determining the
su f f ic ienc y of the ev id enc e to su p po rt a c o nv ic tio n: the ev id e nc e mu st be
su f f ic ient f o r a ratio nal trier o f f

ac t to f ind beyo nd a r e aso nable d o u b t that the d ef end ant w as gu ilty o f t he c harged o f f ense. The ev id enc e m u st be

v iew ed in the light mo st f a v o rable t o s u p p o rt the verd ic t and the d ef end ant no lo nger enj o ys a presu m p tio n o f inno c enc e; mo reo v er, a n ap p ellate co u rt d etermines ev id enc e su f f ic ienc y and d o es no t w e igh the
ev id enc e o r d etermine the c red ibility o f w itnesses. (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n omitted

. ) Ki n g v . S ta te , 36 4 Ga. Ap p . 26 3, 26 5 (87 4 SE2d
439 ) (2022).

5(a) In v a s i on o f Pri v a cy . Su bj ec t t o e x c e p tio ns w hic h are no t ap p lic able to this

c ase, “ [i]t shall be u nlaw f u l f o r . . . [a]ny perso n, t hro u gh the u se o f any d ev ic e,

w itho u t the co nsent o f all perso ns o b serv ed , t o o b s erv e, p ho t ograp h, o r rec o rd the

ac tiv ities o f ano ther w hic h o c c u r in any p r iv ate p lac e and o u t o f p ublic v iew [. ]”
OCGA § 1 6- 1 1

- 6 2 (2). H ere, bo th M

. S. and D

. S. testif ied that they sp otted a “ little
snak ehead ” c amera sp ying o n them f r o m u nd erneath the bathro o m d oo r w hile they
sho w e r e d and as they go t ou t of the sho w er. D

. S. also t e stif ied that, w hile she d id no t

see w ho w as ho l d i n g t h e c a mera o n t he other s id e o f t he d o o r, s he id entif ied
Cu lv erso n bec au se s he “c o u ld hear him walk ing in his bo o ts. ” Finally, the c amera w as later f o u nd in Cu lv erso n’ s bed r o o m. See OCGA § 1 6

- 1 1

- 62 (2). (b) S ex u a l Ba ttery a

ga i n st a C hi ld u n der 1 6

. “ A p erso n c o mmits the o f f ense o f

sexu al battery w hen he o r s he intentio nally mak es p hysic al c o ntac t with the intimate
p arts o f t he bo d y o f ano ther p erso n w itho u t the c o nsent o f that p erso n. ” OCGA § 1 6

- 6

- 22. 1 (b). The d ef

initio n o f “ intimate p arts” inc lu d es the f emale breasts. OCGA §

1 6

- 6- 22. 1 (a). A t t r ial, M

. S. t estif ied that Cu lv erso n, w ho w a s the d isc ip linarian o f the
ho u seho ld , to u c hed her breasts w hen she w a s yo u nger than 1 6

. I n a d d i t io n, the u nc le’ s testimo ny t hat M

. S. c ried and bec ame “ re al l y . . . u p set” as she to ld him that

6Cu lv erso n “ w as to u c hing her” au tho riz ed the j u ry to c o nc lu d e that the to u c hing w as

ac c omp lished w itho u t her c o nsent. See OCGA § § 1 6

- 6

- 22. 1 (b), 24- 1 4- 8 (“ The
testimo ny o f a single w itness is generally s u f f ic ient to establish a f

a c t. ” ); s ee a lso S mi th

v . S ta te , 36 1 Ga. A p p . 436 , 439 ( 1 ) (b) (86 4 SE2d 6 45) (2021 ) (ho ld ing, in pro sec u tio n f o r ag g r a v ated sexu al battery, that the j u ry c o u ld inf er lac k o f c o nsent f

ro m o ther

ev id enc e and that v ic tim w a s n o t “ requ ired to testif y t hat she d id no t c o nsent” );
N emb h a rd v . S ta t

e , 36 0 Ga. A p p . 56 8, 56 9

- 57 0 ( 1) (859 SE2d 1 1 8) (2021 ) (no ting, in
af f irming sexu al b a ttery c o nv ic tio n, that d ef end ant’ s to u c hing “had no benign o r no nsexu al p urp o s e” and that d ef end ant w as in an au tho rity p o sitio n o v er v ic tim).
Theref o re, v iew ed in a light mo st f av o rable to the v erd ic t, w e c o nc lu d e that a
ratio nal trier o f f

ac t c o uld hav e f

o u nd Cu lv e r so n gu ilty beyo nd a reaso nable d o u bt o f
the c rimes w ith w hic h he was c o nv ic ted

. S e e J a cks o n v . Vi

rgi n i a , 443 U. S. 307 (9 9
SCt 27 81 , 6 1 LE2d 56 0) (1 9 7 9 ) ; Reyes v . S ta te , 356 Ga. A p p. 346 , 348 (1 ) ( 847 SE2d 25) (2020) (f

ind ing ev id enc e o f sexu al battery su f f ic ient w here d ef

end ant to u c hed

v ic tim’ s breasts); Pri

ce v . S ta te , 320 G a. A p p . 85, 86 (2) (7 38 SE2d 289 ) (201 3) (c o nc lu d ing e v id enc e o f inv asio n o f p riv ac y su f fic ient w here def

end ant p lac ed hid d en

c amera t o rec o rd v ic tim sho w ering and dressing); S n i der v . S t a t e , 238 G a . A p p . 55,

757

- 58 (1 ) (b) (51 6 SE2d 56 9 ) (1 9 9 9 ) (f ind ing ev id enc e o f inv asio n o f p riv ac y su f f ic ient

w here nu d e d ef

end ant w atc hed ad o p ted d au ghter thro u gh bathro o m w ind ow ).

2. N ext, Cu lv erso n argu es that the trial co u rt e r r e d i n allo w ing t he j u ry to

rev iew a series o f text messages af ter the ev id e nc e c lo sed

. B ec a u se the text messages

w ere no t su bj ec t to the c o ntinu ing w itness ru le, w e f ind no erro r. I n its case in c hief

, the State tend ered a series of text messages betw een the

v ic tim a nd her mo ther in t o e v i d e n c e. The trial c o u rt a d mitted the text messages as State’ s Exhibit 1 w itho u t o bj ec tio n, and t he State p u blished the exhibit t o the j u ry. The trial c o u rt d id no t allo w the exhibit to go o u t with the j u ry, no t ing that “ [ t]hey can alw ays send a no te requ esting to re- see them again.

. . . ” Du ring d eliberatio ns, the j u ry

sent a no t e to the trial c o u r t, ind ic ating that it w as “ missing State’ s Ev id enc e # 1 [. ]”
The t rial c o u r t i n d i c ated it w o uld instru c t the j u ry o n G eo rgia’ s c o ntinu ing w itness

ru le and a llo w the j u ry to insp ec t the exhibit in the c o u rtro om. Cu lv erso n o bj ec ted to the co u rt’ s p ro p o sed p ro c e d u re and ask ed that the trial c o urt simp ly instru c t the j u ry

o n the c ontinu ing witness ru le. The tria l co u rt o verru led Cu lv erso n’ s o bj ec tio n,

8instru c ted the j u ry o n the co ntinu ing w itness ru le, and allo w ed the j u ry to r e v iew the

exhibit in the c o u rtro o m. 2
Und er Geo r gia law , the c o ntinu ing w itness o bj ec tio n is based on the id ea that it is u nf air a nd p lac es u nd u e emp hasis o n w ritten testimo ny, w hic h is heard by t he ju ry
w hen giv en f

ro m the w itness stand , f

o r the w r iting to go o ut w ith the ju ry to be read again d u ring d e l iberatio ns, giv en that o ral t estimo ny is
rec eiv e d o nly o nc e, w hen giv en f ro m the w itness stand

.
C la rke v . S ta te , 308 Ga. 6 30, 6 36 (4) (842 SE2d 86 3) (2020). See also Keller v . S ta te , 308 Ga. 49 2, 505- 5 06 (9 ) (842 SE2d 22) (2020). H o w ev er, the text messages in this

c ase

w ere no t the red u c tio n to w riting o f an oral statement, n o r a w ritten statement pro v id ed in lieu o f testimo ny. I nstead , they w e r e o riginal d o c u mentary e v id e nc e. The c hallenged e xhibits w er e no t w ritten testimo ny a nd d i d n o t d eriv e their ev id e ntiary v alu e so lely f r o m the
c red ibility of their mak ers. I nstead , they w ere o riginal do c u m e ntary
ev id enc e , and w ere p ro p erly allo w ed to go o ut w ith the j u ry.

2 T he trial c o u rt allo wed the j u ro rs to p ass the exhibit amo ngst themselv es “ b ec au se that’ s ho w they saw it in the f irst p lac e. ” The rec o rd ind ic ates that the j u ry rev iew ed the text messages f o r as lo ng as 34 minu tes.

9(Citatio n o mitted

. ) C la rke , 308 Ga. at 6 36 (4); ac c o rd K eller , 308 Ga. at 506 (9 ).
A c c o rd ingly, w e f

ind no erro r. 3

3. Finally, Cu lv erso n asserts that t he c u mu lativ e ef f e c t o f the trial co u rt’ s erro rs entitles him to a new trial. A s Cu lv erso n has only id entif ied one p u rp o rted erro r, the

c u m u lativ e erro r analysis d o es no t ap p ly.
I n S t a te v . La n e , 308 Ga. 1 0, 1 7 (1 ) ( 838 SE2d 808) ( 2020), t he Su p reme Co urt

o f Geo rgia a d o p ted a c u mu lativ e erro r a n a l y sis, artic u lating that “ the p ro p er ap p ro a c h [f o r su c h an analysis] is to c o nsid er c o l l ec t iv ely the p rej u d ic ial ef f ec t, if any, o f trial

c o u rt erro rs, alo n g w ith t he p rej u d ic e c au sed by any d ef ic ient perf

o r manc e o f

c o u nsel. ” Of c ou rse, “ w here, as here[,] t here are no t mu ltip le erro rs, t here c an be no

c u m u lativ e erro r . ” Wi

lli a ms v . Sta te , 358 Ga. Ap p . 1 52, 1 57 (c ) (853 SE2d 383) (2021 ).
See a lso Ma rti

n v. S t a te , 36 0 Ga. A p p . 1 , 1 0 (3) (86 0 SE2d 582) ( 2021 ). H e re, the o nly alleged e r ro r Cu lv erso n id entif ied w as the trial c o u rt’ s d ec isio n to allo w the j u ry to

rev iew a n exhibit a f

ter the c lo se o f the ev id enc e — an allegatio n that w e d etermined

3 Da v i s v . S ta t e , 285 Ga. 343 , 3 4 8 (8) (6 76 SE2d 21 5) (2009 ), u p on w hic h Cu lv erso n so lely relies, d o es no t requ ire a d if f erent resu lt. I n a d d itio n to hav ing been d e c i d e d o v er a dec ad e bef o re the d isc ussio n o f text messages and the c o ntinu ing w itness r u le in C

la rke , 308 Ga. a t 6 3 6 ( 4 ) , a nd Keller , 308 Ga. at 505- 506 (9 ), D a v i s d etermined that d o c uments inc lu d ing “ letters, p ho to grap hs and a d eath c ertif ic ate” w ere p ro perly allo w ed to go o u t w ith the j u ry. I d

. 10lac k ed merit in D iv isio n 2. To the e xtent Cu lv erso n c l a i m s that s u f f ic ienc y o f the

ev id enc e sho u ld be a p art o f the c u mu lativ e erro r analysis, we are u np ersu a d ed

. See generally Ro dgers v . Ki

rkla nd , N o . CV 07

- 2807 RGK (FFM ), 201 1 U. S. D ist. LEXI S

1 046 25, * 53 (V I ) (G) ( C. D

. Cal. 201 1 ) ( “ Petitio ner’ s su f f ic ienc y o f the ev id enc e c laim
d o es no t lend itself to a c u mu lati v e erro r c laim bec au s e it inv o lv es no e rro r that imp ac ted the j u ry’ s v erd ic t. Rather, it merely c hallenges w hether that v e rd ic t w as

su p p o rted by su f

f ic ient e v id e n c e . ” ). A s a resu lt, Cu lv erso n’ s cu mu lativ e erro r
argu ment f

ails o n this basis.
Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed. D o yle, P. J. , an d W

a t ki n s , J. , co n cu r .

11