WHOLE COURT

N O T IC E : M otions for re c ons i de r a tion m us t be

phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d in our cle r k’s off i c 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 T O L L E

D IN TH IS

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

.

Nov em ber 3, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A1 11 0 . VALLEJ O v . THE STATE.

P H I P P S , Sen i o r Ap p el l at e J u d g e.

Dan i el Val lejo

, wh o w as co n v i ct ed o f ch i l d m o l es t at i on fo l l o wi n g a ju ry t ri al

,

a p p e a l s fro m t h e den i al o f h i s m o t io n fo r n ew t ri al

. Val lejo co n t en ds t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt erred b y ex cl u d i n g ev i d en ce o f a p ri o r al l eg at i o n o f m o l es t at i o n m ad e b y t h e

v i ct i m an d t h at h i s t ri al co un s el was i n effect iv e i n s ev eral res pect s

. Fi n d i n g n o erro r,

we affi rm Val l ejo ’ s co n v i ct io n

.

Vi ewed i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o t h e v erd i ct

, s ee Ja cks o n v. Vi rg i n i a

, 4 4 3

U. S. 3 07

, 3 1 9 (III) (B) (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ), t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed

at t ri al s h o ws t hat Val l ejo m o v ed in wi t h t h e v i ct i m an d h er m ot h er i n A u g u s t 2 0 1 3.

Th e v i ct i m

, wh o was 15 y ears o l d at t h e t i m e of t h e ab u s e, tes t ifi ed t h at Val l ejo b eg an

h av in g s e x w i t h h er i n O ct o b er o r No v em b er o f 2 0 1 3

, an d t h at t h e ab u s e, wh i chi n cl u d ed v ag i n al i n t erco u rs e, co n t i n u ed u n t i l Oct o b er 2 0 1 4

, wh en s h e m ad e an o u t cry

t o h er s ch o o l g u i d an c e c o u n s el o r. Th e co u n s el o r co n t act ed t h e po l i ce, an d Val l ejo

was arres t ed

.

Val l ejo was i n d ict ed fo r t wo co u n t s o f ag g rav at ed ch il d m o l es t at i o n (fo r o ral

an d an al s o d o m

y ) an d o n e co u n t o f ch i l d m o l es t at i o n (fo r v ag in al i n terco urs e). At h i s

2 0 1 9 t ri al

, t h e ju ry f

o u n d h i m g u i l t y o f ch i l d m o l es t at i o n an d n o t g u i l t y o f t h e

rem ai n i n g co u nt s

. Val l ejo fi l ed a m ot i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, w h i c h h e am en ded t h ro u g h

n e w c o u n s el

. Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed Val l ejo ’ s m ot i o n (as am en d ed ) aft er a h eari n g.

Th i s ap p eal fo l l o wed

.

1 . Val l ejo fi rs t co nt en d s t h at t h e t ri al co urt ab u s ed i t s d is cret i o n i n ex cl u d i n g

wh at V al l ejo cl ai m s was a p ri o r fal se al l eg at io n o f ch i l d m o l e s t a t i o n m ad e b y t h e

v i ct i m ag ai n s t h er fat h er. W e d i s ag ree.

“ In p ro s ecu t i o n s fo r ch i l d m o l es t a t i o n

. . . , Geo rg i a’ s Rap e Sh i el d St at u t e

p ro h ib i t s t es ti m o n y reg ard i n g a co m p l ai n i n g w i t nes s ’ s pas t s ex u al b eh av i o r[, b u t] i t

d o es n o t p ro h i b it tes t im o n y reg ard in g p rev io u s fal s e al l eg at i o n s b y t h e co m p l ai n i n g

wi t n es s .” S t a te v. Pa r k

s

, 3 5 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 9 9, 8 11 (2 ) (8 30 SE2 d 2 8 4) (2 0 1 9 ),

d i s ap p ro v ed o f o n o t h er g ro u n d s b y S t at e v. Hi l l

,

_ _ _ Ga. A p p

.

__

_ (2 ) (b ) (_

_ _ SE2 d

2_

_ _ ), No

. A2 1 A1 1 8 4

, 2 0 2 1 W L 4 3 1 6 02 2 ( 2 0 2 1) (p u n ct u at io n om i t t ed ). 1 See al s o

OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 1 2 (a).

Befo re s u ch ev i d e n c e can be ad m i t t ed

, h o wev er, t h e t ri al co urt m u s t

m ak e a t h res h o l d d et erm i n at i o n o u t s i d e th e p re s e n c e o f t h e ju ry t h at a

reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y o f fal s i t y ex is t s. In t h i s co n tex t

, a reas o n ab l e

p ro b ab i l i t y i s a p ro b ab i li t y s u ffi ci en t t o un d erm i n e c o n fi d en ce i n th e

o u t co m e. Defen d an t s h av e t h e bu rd en o f co m i n g fo rward wi t h ev i d en ce

at t h e h eari ng to es t ab li s h a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at t h e v i ct i m h ad

m ad e a p ri o r fal se accu s at i o n o f s ex u al m i s co n d u ct

.

W i l l ia ms v. S t at e

, 2 6 6 G a. Ap p

. 5 7 8

, 5 8 0 (1 ) (5 9 7 SE2 d 62 1 ) (2 0 0 4 ) (ci t at i o n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). See al s o Pa r ks

, 35 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 1 1 -8 1 2 (2 )

. “ We w i l l n ot

d i s t u rb t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d et e r m i n at i o n o n t h i s t h res h o ld i s s u e ab sen t an ab u s e o f

1 In Pa r ks

, 3 50 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 1 1 -8 1 2 (2 ), we rel i ed o n Smi t h v. S t a t e , 2 5 9 Ga.

1 3 5

, 1 3 7 (1 ) (3 7 7 SE2 d 15 8 ) (1 9 89 ), o v erru l ed i n p art o n o t h er g ro un d s by S t a t e v.

Bu r ns

, 3 0 6 Ga. 1 1 7

, 1 1 9 -1 2 4 (2 ) (8 29 SE2 d 3 6 7 ) (2 0 1 9 ), i n wh i ch t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

o f Geo rg i a h el d t hat G eo rg ia’ s Rap e Sh iel d St at u t e, as i t t h en ex i s t ed u n d er t h e o ld

Ev i d en ce Co d e, d i d n o t pro hi bi t ev i d en ce of p ri o r fal s e al l eg at i o n s m ad e b y a v i ct i m

. In S mi th

, t h e Su prem e Co u rt al s o h el d t h at “ th e ev i d en t iary ru l e prev en t i n g ev i d en ce

o f s p eci fi c act s of u n tru t hfu ln es s m u s t y i el d t o t h e defen d an t ’ s [co ns t i t u ti o n al ] ri g ht

o f co n fro n t at i o n an d ri g h t t o pres en t a fu l l d efen s e

. ” 2 5 9 Ga. at 1 3 7 (1 ). As we

ex p lai n ed in Pa rks

, i n Bu rn s

, 3 0 6 Ga. a t 1 2 1 (2 ), t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o v erru l ed t h e

co n st i t u t io n al h o l di n g i n S m i t h

, b u t h el d t h a t t h e “ ‘ ev i den t i ary h o l d i ng i n S mi t h i s

co n si s t en t wi t h th e d ecad es- ol d p l ai n l an g u ag e o f t h e Rap e Sh iel d St at u te an d rem ai n s

g o o d l aw i n t h e era o f t h e n ew Ev i d en ce C o d e .’ ” 3 5 0 Ga. Ap p. at 8 1 1 (2 ) (q u o t i n g

Bu r ns , 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 2 1 (2 )).

3d i s cret i o n .” Ch eek v. S t a t e

, 2 6 5 Ga. A p p

. 1 5

, 1 7 (2 ) (5 9 3 SE2 d 5 5 ) (2 0 0 3 ). See al s o

Pa r ks , 3 5 0 Ga. Ap p . at 8 13 (2 ).

Befo re t ri al

, Val l ejo fi l ed a “ M o t io n t o Ad m i t Fal s e Al l eg at io n s o f Sex u al

M i s c o n d u ct b y t he A l l eg ed Vi ct i m ,” co n t en d i n g t h at t he v i ct im an d h er m o t h er

p rev i o u s l y h ad fal s el y accu s ed t h e v i ct i m ’ s fat h er 2 o f ch i l d m o l es tat i o n

. T h e t ri al

co u rt h el d a h eari ng o n t h e m o t i o n

, at wh ich Val l ejo p res en t ed t h e tes t im o n y o f a

fo rm er s h eri ff’ s o ffi ce i n ves t i g at o r an d t h e v i ct i m ’ s fo rm er s t e pm o th er. Th e

i n v es t i g at o r t es t i fi ed t h at

, i n 2 0 0 5

, wh en t h e v i ct i m was s i x y ears o l d

, h er m o t h er

co n tact ed th e s h eri ff’s o ffi ce t o rep o rt t he vi ct i m ’ s o u t cry ag ai n s t h er fat h er. Th e

m o th er rep o rt ed t h at t he v i ct i m t o l d h er t h at t h e vi ct i m ’ s f a t h e r “ wo u l d t o u ch h er

v ag in a o n t h e t o p o f h er cl ot hes an d h e wo ul d k i s s h er wh e n h e w a s d o i n g t h at an d

t o l d h er n o t t o t el l.” Du ri n g a fo ren s i c i n t erv i ew, t h e vi ct im d is cl os ed t hat h er fat h er

t o u ch ed h er v ag i n a t h ro u g h h er cl o t h i n g nu m ero u s t i m es an d k i ss ed h er n eck an d ear.

Th e v i ct i m

, u n p ro m

p t ed b y t h e i n t erv i ewer, pi ck ed u p a d o ll

, p oi n t ed t o i t s v ag i n al

area, a n d s a i d

, “ Th at ’ s wh ere h e t o u ch es m e.” Th e v i ct i m al s o i n d i cat ed t h at h er

m o th er t o l d h er t h at d o l l s wo u l d b e u s ed i n t h e i n t erv i ew. Th e i n v es t i g at o r t es t i fi ed

t h at t h e m o t h er t el l i n g t h e v i ct i m ab o u t t h e d o ll s was “ o d d ” an d rai s ed a “ red fl ag .”

2 Th e v i ct i m ’ s fat h er d i ed i n 2 0 0 9

.

4Ho wev er, s h e al so t es t i fi ed t h at s h e bel i ev ed t h e v ict i m an d h er m o t h er. Th e v i ct i m ’ s

fat h er d en i ed t h e al l eg at i on s

. Al t h o u g h t h e St at e d ecl i n ed t o p r o s e c u t e, t h e

i n v es t i g at o r tes ti fi ed t h at t h e d i s t ri ct at t o rn ey al s o d i d n o t b el i ev e t h at t he ch i l d was

l y i n g.

Th e v ict i m ’ s fo rm er s t ep m o t h er t es t i fi ed t h at th e v ict i m ’ s fat h er h ad n o t k n o wn

t h e vi ct i m ex i s t ed u n t i l t h e v ict i m was aro u n d t wo y ears o l d

. Aft er a t es t es t ab l i s h ed

h i s p at ern i t y

, t he vi ct i m ’ s fat h er l eg i t im at ed t h e v i ct i m

, b eg an p ay i n g ch i l d s u p p o rt

,

an d h ad v i s i t a t i o n ev ery o th er week en d

. Th e fo rm er s t ep m o t h er t es t i fi ed t h at s h e

n ev er s aw an y ev id en ce t hat t h e v i c t i m ’ s fat h er had act ed in ap p ro p ri at el y wi t h t h e

v i ct i m an d n ev er n o t iced t h e v i ct i m was afrai d t o b e h o m e al o n e wi t h h er fat h er. In

fact

, acco rd i n g to t h e fo rm er s t ep m o t h er, i n t h e week s b efo re t h e v i ct i m ’ s ou t cry

, t h e

v i ct i m “ was g et t i n g m o re co m fo rt ab l e an d s h e wan t ed t o co m e t o o u r h o u s e. An d

wan ted t o s t ay an d s t a y l o n g e r[.] ” Th e fo rm er s t ep m o th er cl ai m ed t h at t h e v i ct i m

ex p res s ed an i nt eres t i n li v i n g wi t h o r sp en d i n g m o re ti m e w i t h h er fat h er an d fo rm er

s t ep m o th er b u t t h e v i ct im ’ s m o t h er t o l d t he s t ep m o t h er “ th at wo u ld n ev er h ap p en [ ] .”

Th e s t ep m o t h er rep o rt ed t h i s co n v ers at i o n t o t h e in v es t i g at or fo l l o wi ng t he v i ct i m ’ s

o u t cry

.

5Aft er t h e h ear i ng

, t h e t ri al co u rt den i ed Val l ejo ’ s m o ti o n

, fi n d i n g t h at t h e

ev i d en ce p res en t s o nl y “ a p o s s i b i l i t y o f f al s eh o o d as o p p o s ed t o a reas o n ab l e

p ro b ab i l i t y o f fal s eh o od .” In t h e o rd er d en y i n g Val l ejo ’ s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

, t h e t ri al

co u rt ag ai n s t at ed t h at i t h a d c o n s i dered t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed at t h e h eari n g an d

fo u n d t hat Val lejo “ had n o t carri ed h i s b u rd en o f s h o wi ng a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y

o f fal si t y

. ”

Val l ejo arg u es t h at s i gn i fi can t ev id en ce o f fal s i t y was p res en t ed at th e h eari n g

an d t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ab u s ed i t s d i s cret i on i n fi n d i n g o t h erwi s e. Of co u rs e, “ [a] n

accu s ed ’ s as s ert i o n t hat t h e accu s at i o n s ag ai n s t h i m are fal s e d o es n o t n e ces s ari l y

rai s e a r e a s o n a b l e p ro b ab i l i t y o f fal s i t y .” Ch eek

, 2 65 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 7 (2 ). See al s o

Pa r ks

, 3 5 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 1 2 (2 ). An d “ t he fact t h at an accu s at i o n i s n o t p ro s ecu t ed ”

l i kewi s e “ i s in su ffi ci en t t o es t ab l i s h i t s fal s i t y .” W i l li a ms

, 2 6 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 8 1 (1 ).

See al so Pa r

ks

, 3 5 0 Ga. A p p. at 8 1 2 -8 1 3 (2 ). Nev ert h el es s

, Val l ejo co n t en d s t h at

t h ere was s i g n ifi can t ad d i ti on al ev i d en ce o f fal s it y p res en t ed at t h e m o ti o n h eari n g.

Rel y i n g o n d u b i o u s i n feren ces drawn fro m t h e i n v es tiga tor ’ s a n d fo rm er s t ep m o t h er’ s

t es t i m o ny

, Val l ejo m ai n t ai ns t h at t h e ev i den ce s ho ws t h at th e v i ct im ’ s m o t h er h ad a

m o ti v e t o co ach t he v i ct i m i n t o m ak i n g fal s e al l eg at i on s ag ai n st her fat her an d t h at

t h e v ict i m was

, in fact

, co ach ed

. Ho wev er, t h i s arg u m en t g o es t o t h e cred i b i l i t y o f t h e

6wi t n es s es ’ t es t i m o ny ; i nd eed

, Val l e j o h a s effect i v el y as s ert ed t h at t h e t ri al co u rt

s h o u ld h av e cred i t ed t h e s tep m o t h er’s t es t i m o n y o v er t h e i n ves t i g at o r’ s

. Th i s

arg u m en t p res en t s n o g ro u n d fo r rev ers al

. Aft er o b serv i n g t h e wi t n es ses ’ d em ean o r

an d co ns i d eri n g t h ei r in t eres t s i n t h e cas e, t he tri al co u rt fo u n d t h e i nv es t i g at o r’ s

t es t i m o ny to b e cred i bl e an d co n cl u d ed t h at t h e s tep m o t h er’ s t es t i m o n y “ d i d n ot

d em an d a fi n d i n g o f reas o n ab l e p ro bab i l it y of fal s i t y .” Th e t es t i m o n y at t h e h eari n g

s u p p ort s t h e t ri a l c o u r t ’s fi n d i n g t h at fal s it y w as n o t es t ab l i s h ed b y a reas o n ab l e

p ro b ab i l i t y

. See W

i l li a ms

, 2 66 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 8 0 -5 8 1 (1 ) (u ph o l d i n g ex cl u s i o n o f

ev i d en ce o f al leg ed p ri o r fal s e s t at em en t wh ere t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g was b as ed i n

p art o n th e co u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n o f t h e cred i b i l i t y o f t h e wi t n es s es t h e co u rt o b s erv ed

i n p e r s o n b efo re ru li n g o n ad m i s s i b i l i t y ). See al so Pa r ks

, 3 5 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 1 2 -8 1 3

(2 ). Acco rd i n g l y

, we fi n d no ab u s e o f d i scret i o n i n t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ex cl u s i o n o f

ev i d en ce o f t h e al l eg ed p ri o r fal s e al l eg at i o n.

W e d i s ag ree w i t h t he d i s s en t ’ s as s ert i o n t h at i n S t a te v. Bu r n s

, 30 6 Ga. 1 1 7,

1 2 3 (2 ) (8 29 SE2 d 36 7 ) (2 0 1 9), t h e Su prem e Co u rt o f G eo r g i a r e j e c t ed t h e ru l e

es t ab l i s h ed i n S

mi t h v. S t a t e

, 2 5 9 Ga. 13 5

, 1 3 7 -1 3 8 (1 ) (3 7 7 SE2 d 1 5 8 ) (1 9 8 9 ),

req u i ri n g t h e t ri al co u rt to m ak e a t h res h o l d det erm in at i o n t hat a reas o n ab l e

p ro b ab i l i t y o f fal s i t y ex i s t s b efo re ev i den ce o f p ri o r fal s e al leg at io n s can be ad m i t t ed

.

7In Bu r n s

, t h e v i ct im ad m i t t ed th at her p ri o r al leg at i on was fal se, 3 06 Ga. at 1 1 8

, an d

t h e Su p rem e Co u rt t h erefo re di d n o t d i s cu s s w h et h er t he th res h o ld d e t erm i n at i o n

req u i rem en t rem ai n s g oo d l aw. See i d . at 1 1 9 -1 2 6 (2 )-(3 ). 3

3 In ad d i t io n to o v erru l i n g t h e co ns t i t u t i o nal h ol d i n g in S m i t h

, t h e B u r n s Co u rt

o v erru l ed “ s im i lar h o l d i n g s ” i n a n u m b er of cas es , al l o f wh i ch ap p l i ed S mi t h ’ s p er

s e ru l e o f ad m i ss i b i l i ty

. B u r n s

, 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 24 (2 ), o v erru l in g Ben t on v. St a t e

, 2 6 5 Ga.

6 4 8

, 6 4 9 -6 5 0 (5 ) (4 6 1 SE2 d 2 0 2 ) (1 9 9 5 ); Ra y v. S t at e

, 3 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. 5 2 2

, 5 2 9 (4 )

(8 1 2 SE2 d 9 7) (2 0 1 8 ); Tys o n v. S t a t e

, 2 32 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 2

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

(1 9 9 8); Pet er

s v. S t a t e

, 2 2 4 Ga. Ap p

. 8 3 7

, 8 3 9 (4 ) (4 8 1 SE2 d 8 98 ) (1 9 9 7 ); Hi n es v.

S t a t e

, 2 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. 1 9 3

, 1 9 3 -1 9 5 (4 7 0 SE2 d 7 87 ) ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; Hu mp h r ey v. S t a t e

, 2 0 7

Ga. A p p

. 4 7 2

, 47 5 -4 7 6 (2 ) (4 2 8 SE2 d 3 6 2 ) (1 9 9 3 ); S t r ickl a nd v. S t a t e

, 2 0 5 G a. Ap p.

4 7 3

, 4 7 3 -4 7 4 (4 22 SE2 d 31 2 ) (1 9 92 ); El l i s o n v. S t a t e

, 1 9 8 Ga. Ap p

. 7 5

, 75 -7 7 ( 1 )

(4 0 0 SE2 d 3 6 0 ) (1 9 9 0 ); an d S hel t o n v. S t a t e , 1 9 6 Ga. Ap p. 1 6 3, 1 6 4 (4 ) (3 9 5 SE2 d

6 1 8 ) (1 9 9 0 ).

Th e Bu r ns C o u r t m a d e a k ey d i s t in ct io n b et ween cas es t h at i t o verru l ed an d

cas es o f wh i ch i t o n l y di s ap p ro v ed

. Fo r ex am p l e, wh il e t he Co u rt o v erru l ed Ben t o n

, Tys o n , an d S t r i ckl a n d (each ci t ed b y t h e d i s sen t ), i t o n ly co n d it i on al l y

d i s ap p ro v ed

o f M or g a n v. S ta t e

, 3 3 7 Ga. Ap p

. 2 9

, 3 1 (1 ) (7 8 5 SE2 d 6 6 7 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (al s o ci ted b y t h e

d i s s en t ). 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 24 (2 ), n

. 3

. In Ben t o n

, th e Su p rem e Co urt h el d t h at

, b ecau s e a

reas on ab l e p ro bab i l i t y o f fal s i t y h ad b een s h o wn

, t he t ri al co urt erred i n ex cl u d i n g t h e

ev i d en ce at i s su e. 2 6 5 Ga. at 6 4 9 -6 5 0 (5 ). In ru l i ng t h at t he ev i d en ce s h o u l d h av e

b een ad m i tt ed

, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt n eces s ari l y ap pl i ed t h e co n s t i t u t i on al (p er s e

ad m i s s i b i l i t y ) ho l d i n g i n S mi t h

. Th e s am e an al y s is ap p l i es t o o ur d eci s i o n s i n Tys o n

, 2 3 2 Ga. Ap p . at 7 33 -7 3 4 (2 ), an d S t r i ckl a n d , 2 0 5 Ga. Ap p . at 4 7 3 -4 7 4.

In Mo r g a n

, o n t he o t h er h an d

, th i s Co u rt hel d t h at t h e t ri al co u rt d i d no t ab u s e

i t s d is cret i o n i n excl u d in g ev i den ce u n d er S mi t h aft er fi nd i ng t h at t h e p ri o r al l eg atio n s

were t r u e

. 3 3 7 Ga. Ap p

. at 3 1 (1 ). Th u s

, b ecau s e w e h ad n o o ccas i o n t o d i rect l y ap p l y

t h e co n st i tu t i o n al p er s e ad m i s s i b i li t y ru le, t h e Su prem e Co u rt in B u r n s o n l y

d i s ap p ro v ed o f Mo r

g a n “ t o t h e ex t en t t h at [i t ] ci t e[d ] o r rel [i ed ] o n t h e co n s t i t u t i o n al

h o l d i n g i n S

mi t h

. ” 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 2 4 (2 ), n

. 3

. If t h e reas o n ab le pro b ab i l it y o f fal s i t y tes t

h ad b een p art o f S

mi t h ’ s co n s ti t u t i o n al ru l i n g

, t h e Bu r n s Co u rt w o u ld h av e o v erru l ed

Mo r g a n (as i t d i d Tys o n

, Ben t o n

, an d S t r ickl a nd ), rat h er t h an m erel y d i s ap pro v i n g o f

8Th e di ss en t ’ s rel i an ce o n o u r d eci s io n i n Ra y v. S t a t e

, 3 5 6 Ga. Ap p

. 26 6 (8 4 1

SE2 d 4 7 7) (2 0 2 0) (“

Ra y III ”), al s o i s m is p l aced . In Ra y v. S t a te

, 3 4 5 Ga. Ap p . 5 2 2,

5 2 9 (4 ) (8 1 2 SE2 d 9 7) (2 01 8 ) (“ Ra y I ”), o v erru l ed i n p art b y Bu r n s , 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 2 4

( 2 )

, w e h el d t h at t he tri al co u rt erred i n ex cl u d i n g as irrel ev an t ev i d en ce t h at t h e

v i ct i m ’ s au n t h ad m ad e p ri o r fal s e cl ai m s o f s ex u al ab us e. W e v acat ed t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

ju d g m en t an d rem an d ed th e cas e wi t h t h e d i rect io n t h at “ t h e t ri al co u rt m u s t m ak e t h e

n eces s ary t h res h o l d d e t erm i n at i o n reg ard i n g fal s i t y .” Id

. W e fu rt h er i n s t ru ct ed t h e

t ri al co u rt t h at “ [i ] f a reas on ab l e l i k el i h o o d of fal s i t y ex i s ts

, ev i d en ce o f t h e

al l eg at i o n s i s ad m i s s i b l e, an d [t h e d efen d an t ] i s en t i t l ed t o a n ew t ri al

. ” Id

. As t h e

d i s s en t n ot es

, at t he ti m e o f t he Bu r n s d eci s i o n

, o u r d eci s i o n i n Ra y I was b efo re t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt o n a p et i t i on fo r a wri t o f cert i o rari

. In t h e ord er v acat i n g ou r d eci s i o n

i n R a y I a n d rem an di n g t h e cas e t o t h i s Co u rt fo r reco n s i d erat i o n i n l i g h t o f Bu r n s

,

t h e Su prem e Co u rt s t at ed t h at i n Bu r n s , i t o v erru l ed t h e h ol di n g i n S mi t h “ t h at , as a

i t “ t o t h e ex t en t t h at ” i t ci ted o r rel ied o n Smi t h ’ s co ns t i t u t i o nal h o l di n g

. Al s o wo rt h n o t i n g i s th at t h e deci s i o ns i n S mi t h

, 2 5 9 Ga. at 13 7 -1 3 8 (1 ), Tys o n

, 2 3 2 Ga. Ap p

. at 7 3 3 -7 3 4 (2 ), an d S t r i ckl a n d

, 2 0 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 4 7 4

, al l h i g hl i g h t ed t h at

t h e reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l it y o f fal s i t y t es t i s d es i g n ed t o p ro t ect t h e vi ct im (rat h er t h an

t h e d efen d an t ), wh i ch

, b y i t s v ery n at u re, i s ev i d en t i ary (rat h er t h an co n s t i t u t i o n al )

i n n a t u re. Th e co n st i t u t io nal h ol d i n g i n S mi t h

, b y way o f co n t ras t

, was d es i g n ed to

p ro t ect t h e d

ef en da nt ’s co n s t i t u t i o n al “ ri gh t o f co n fro n tat i o n an d ri g ht t o p re s en t a

fu l l d efen s e.” 2 5 9 Ga. at 1 3 7 (1 ); acco rd Bu r n s

, 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 2 1 -1 2 3 (2 ).

9m at t er of co n s t i t u ti o n al l aw, ev i d en ce o f a v i ct i m ’ s p ri o r fal s e cl ai m s of s ex ual ab u s e

i s p er s e ad m i s s i b l e i n a s ex u al as s au l t cas e ‘ t o at t ack t h e cred i b i l i t y o f t h e p ro s ecu tri x

an d as s u b s t an t i ve ev i d en ce t en d i n g t o p ro v e t h at t he i n s t an t o ffen s e d id n ot o ccu r.’ ”

S t a t e v. Ra

y

, No

. S1 8 C1 2 01

, 20 1 9 Ga. LEXIS 5 7 7

, at * 1 (Au g. 1 9, 2 0 1 9 ) (“ Ra y II ”)

(q u o ti n g S

mi th

, 25 9 Ga. at 13 7 (1 )). T h e Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n i n Ra y II d i d n ot

refer t o t h e t hres h o l d d et erm i n at i o n req ui rem en t es t ab l i s h ed i n S mi th

. See i d

.

W h en we reco n si d ered Ra y o n rem an d

, we fo cu s ed o n t he Su p rem e Co urt ’ s

o v erru l i ng o f t h e ru l e ren d eri n g p ri or fal s e al l eg at i o n s o f s ex u al ab u s e p er s e

ad m i s s i b l e. See R a

y III

, 35 6 G a

. A p p

. at 26 6

, 2 6 8 -2 7 0

. W e d es cri b ed t h e i s s u e

“ i d e n t i f ied b y ou r Su p rem e Co u rt ” i n R a y II as “ wh et h er ev i d en ce of t he d ece a s e d

au n t’ s p ri o r fal se rep o rt s

, ” wh i ch t h e t ri al co urt h ad d eem ed i n ad m i s s ib le as i rrel ev an t

– w i t ho u t h av i n g co nd u ct ed a d et erm i n at i o n as t o w h et h er t h ere w as a reas o n ab l e

p r o b a b i li t y t h at t h ey were fal s e

– “ s h ou l d b e ad m is s i b l e u n d er [OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3

(“ Ru l e 4 0 3 ”)] .” 4 Id

. at 2 6 8

. W e s t at ed t h at in o u r p rev io u s o p i ni o n

, we n o t ed t h at “ i t

m ay w el l b e t hat t es t i m o ny s h o w i n g t h at t h e v i ct i m ’ s d eceas ed au n t

, wh o rep o rt ed t h e

4 T h at s t at u t e p ro v i d es : “ Rel ev an t ev i d en ce m ay b e ex cl u ded i f i t s pro 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 preju d ice, co n fu s i o n o f t h e

i s su es

, or m i s l ead i n g t h e ju ry or b y co n s 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 les s p res en t at i o n o f cu m u lat i v e ev i d en ce.”

10cri m es at i s s u e, had p rev i ou s l y m ad e fal s e cl ai m s of s ex u al ab u s e wo u l d b e rel ev an t

t o t h e v eraci t y o f t h e al l eg at i o n s h ere.” Id

. at 26 8 -2 6 9 (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ). W e v acat ed t h e d efen d an t ’ s co n vi ct io n an d r e m a n d ed t h e cas e wi t h t h e

d i r e c t i o n t h at t h e t ri al co u rt h o l d a h eari n g t o d et erm i n e “ wh et her, u n d er Ru l e 4 0 3

,

t h e p ro b at iv e v al u e o f ev i d en ce as t o t h e v i ct i m ’ s au n t ’ s p ri o r fal s e accu s at i o n i s

s u b s t an t i al l y o u twei g h ed b y i t s p r e j u d ici al effect .” Id

. at 2 7 0

. W e ag ree wi t h t h e

d i s s en t t h at , fo ll o wi n g Bu r n s , t ri al co u rt s m u st d et erm i n e t h e ad m i s s i b i li t y o f fal s ealleg at i on ev i d en ce by ap p l y i n g “ t h e fam il i ar an d u s u al ru l es o f ev i d en ce.” See Bu r n s

,

3 0 6 Ga. at 1 2 4 (2 ). Ho wev er, t h i s p ro ced u re neces s ar i l y r e qu i res an i n i t i al

d et erm i n at i o n o f wh et h er t h e p ri o r al leg at i on s were, i n fact

, fal s e (o r, m o re p reci s el y

,

t h at t h ere was a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at t hey were fal se).

As n o ted p rev i o us l y

, i n Pa r ks

, 3 5 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 1 1 (2 ), we reco g ni zed t h at t h e

co n st i t u t io n al h o l di n g o f S m i t h h ad b een o v erru l ed i n B u r n s b ut t h at t h e ev i d en ti ary

h o l d i n g o f Smi t h rem ai n s g o o d l aw. In t h at co n t ex t, we ap p l i ed t h e t h res h o ld

d et erm i n at i o n t es t . Id . at 8 1 1-8 1 2 (2 ). W e b el i ev e o u r an al y s i s was co rrect i n Pa r ks

11an d t h at t h e t hres h o l d d et erm i n at i o n req u i rem en t r e m ai n s g o o d l aw aft er Bu r n s

,

co n trary t o t h e d i s s en t ’ s an al y si s

. 5

2

. Val l ejo co n ten d s al t ern at i v el y t h at t h e vi ct im ’ s p ri o r al l eg at i o n ag ai n s t h er

fa t h e r w as rel ev an t t o sh o w t h e v i ct i m ’ s k n o wl ed ge o f s ex u al act s an d h er co m fo rt

l ev el wi th t h e pro ces s o f p ro s ecu t i o n

. Sp eci fi cal l y

, p ri o r t o t ri al

, Val l ejo fi l ed a n o t i ce

o f i n t en t t o i n t ro d u ce ev i d en ce o f t h e v ict i m ’ s “ pri o r s ex u al as s au l t by her bi o l o g i cal

fat h er” fo r t h e pu rp o s e o f “ i n fo rm [i n g] t h e ju ry t h at t h e al l eg ed v i ct im an d h er m o t h er

. . . h av e a ‘ fu n d o f a k n o wl ed g e’ t o m ak e al l eg at i o n s

– i .e. t hey h av e ex p eri en ce

wo rk i n g wi t h p o l ice, d i s cl o s i n g al l eg ed ab u s e, an d en co u rag i ng a p ro secu t i o n o f t h e

s am e.”

Aft er a h eari ng

, th e t ri al co u rt fi rs t fo u n d t h e Rap e Sh i el d St at ut e i n ap p l i cab l e

t o t he ev i d en ce at i ss u e, ci t in g Lema cks v. S t a t e

, 2 07 Ga. Ap p

. 1 6 0, 1 61 (4 2 7 SE2 d

5 3 6 ) (1 9 93 ), in s u pp o rt o f i ts ru l i n g . Seco nd , rel y i n g o n Bl a ckwel l v. S t at e

, 2 2 9 Ga.

Ap p

. 45 2

, 4 5 4 (2 ) (4 9 4 SE2 d 2 6 9 ) (1 9 9 7), t h e co u rt o b s erv ed t h at “ Geo rg i a co u rt s

reco g n ize a ‘ l o n g -s t an d in g ru le b arri n g i n t ro du ct i o n of ev i d en ce o f p ri o r u n rel at ed

m o les t at i o n ’ ” an d t h at o n e o f t h e f e w ex cep ti o n s t o th i s ru le o ccu rs “ wh ere t h e

5 Val l ejo d o es n o t arg u e t hat t h e t h res h o l d d et erm i nat i on req ui rem en t n o l o n g er

ap p li es ; he s i m

p l y arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n d et erm i n i n g t hat t h ere was n ot

a reas on ab l e p ro b ab il i ty

o f fal si t y

.

12ev i d en ce i s o ffered t o s h ow o t h er po s si b l e cau s es fo r t h e vi ct i m ’ s i n ju ri es o r

s y m p to m s .” Th e tri al co u rt t h erefo re r u l ed t h at if t h e St at e o ffered ev i d en ce o f t h e

v i ct i m ’ s i n

j u ri es o r s y

m p t o m s al l eg ed l y cau s ed b y s ex ual ab u s e, Val lejo co u l d o ffer

ev i d en ce o f t h e al l eg ed p ri o r sex u al ab u s e t o ex p l ai n t h e i n ju ri es

. Bas ed o n Lema cks

an d Bl a ckwel l

, as wel l as OCGA § § 2 4 -4 -4 0 1 an d 2 4-4 -4 0 3

, t h e t ri al co u rt b arred t h e

d efen s e fro m o fferi n g ev i d en c e o f t h e p ri o r ab u s e “ s i m p ly t o ex p lai n ” t h e v i ct i m ’ s

“ v o cab u l ary

o r ‘f u n d o f k n owl ed g e.’ ” Ho wev er, t h e t ri al co urt al l o w ed th e d efen s e

t o ren ew i t s req ues t t o o ffer ev i d en ce o f t h e p ri o r ab u s e i f t h e St at e “ o p en ed t h e d o o r

t o s u ch ev i d en ce.”

Val l ejo arg ues t h at t he t ri al co u rt erred b y rel y i n g o n t h e “ l o n g -s t an d i n g ru l e”

referred t o i n B l a ckwel l b ecau se t h at ru l e i s b as ed o n an ap p l i cat i o n o f t h e ru l es o f

ev i d en ce as t h ey ex i s t ed p ri or t o J an u ary 1

, 2 0 1 3

, wel l b efo re Val l ejo ’ s t ri al

. Val l ejo

al s o arg ues t hat t h e ev i d en ce o f t h e vi ct i m ’ s p ri o r al l eg at i o n i s ad m i s s i b l e u n d er t h e

n ew Ev i d en ce Co de. “ Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s io n wh et h er t o ad m it o r ex cl u d e ev i d en ce

wi l l n o t b e d i s t urb ed on ap p eal ab s en t an ab u se o f di s cret i o n .” Jo n es v. S t at e

, 3 0 5 Ga.

7 5 0

, 7 5 1 (2 ) (8 2 7 SE2 d 8 7 9 ) (2 0 1 9 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). Pret erm i t t i n g

13wh et h er t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y rel y in g o n ei t h er Lema cks o r Bl a ckwel l

, 6 t he co u rt d id

n o t ab u s e i t s d is cret i on b y ex cl u d i n g t h e ev i den ce u nd er OCGA § § 2 4 -4 -4 0 1

, 2 4 -4

-

4 0 2 , an d 2 4 -4 -4 0 3.

Un d er OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 1 (“ Ru le 4 0 1 ”), “ rel ev an t ev i d en ce ” i s

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

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

p r o b a b l e t h an i t wo u l d b e wi t h o u t t h e ev i d en ce.” A l t ho u g h OCGA §

2 4 -4 -4 0 2 p ro v i d es th at

, g en eral ly

, “ al l rel ev an t ev i d en ce s h al l be

ad m i s s i b l e,” i t al s o p ro v i d es t h at “ ev i d en ce wh i ch i s n o t rel ev an t s h al l

n o t b e ad m i s si b le.” An d ev en “ rel ev an t ev id en ce m ay b e ex cl u d ed i f i t s

p ro b at iv e v al u e i s s u b s t a n 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 r e j u d i ce, co n fu s i on of t h e i s su es

, o r m i s l ead i n g th e ju ry o r b y

c o n s i d erat i o ns o f un d u e d el ay

, was te o f t im e, o r need l es s p res en t a t i o n

o f cu m u l at i v e ev i den ce.” OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 03

.

S t a t e v. S tep hen s

, 3 1 0 G a. 57

, 5 9 (1 ) (8 4 9 SE2 d 45 9 ) ( 2 02 0 ) (ci t at i o n s an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted ). “ A t r i a l co u rt d o es n o t ab u s e i t s d i s cret i o n b y ex cl u d i n g

i rrel ev an t ev i d en ce.” Id . (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at io n o m i tt ed ).

Val l ejo co n ten d s t h at i f t h e v i ct im was p rev i o u s l y m o l es t ed b y h er fat h er, t h at

fact wo u l d m ak e i t m o re p ro b ab l e t h at sh e wo u l d b e aware o f s ex u al act s

. H o wev er,

6 Al t ho u g h th e t ri al co u rt ci t ed Bl a ckwel l

, i t al s o b as ed it s deci s i o n o n t h e n ew

Ev i d en ce Co de.

14t h e v i ct i m ’ s d es cri p t i o n wh en s h e was s i x y ears o ld o f h er fat h er’ s act s wa s v e r y

d i fferen t fro m t h e s ex u al act s s h e d es cri b ed at t ri al

. At t ri al

, th e v ict i m t es t ifi ed t o t h e

d et ai ls o f v ari o u s s ex act s i n wh i ch Val l ejo fo rced h er t o en g ag e, i n cl u d i n g v ag i n al

,

an al

, an d o ral s ex

. Co n t rary t o Val l ejo ’ s arg u m en t

, ev i d en ce o f t h e v i ct i m ’ s al l eg at i o n

m a d e t e n years p ri o r t o h er ou t cry ag ai n s t Val l ejo t h at h er fat h er h ad t o u ch ed h er

v ag in a o v er h er cl ot h es wo u ld n o t h av e hel p ed ex p l ai n h er k n o wl ed g e o f t h e m u l t i p l e,

d et ai led s ex u al act s t h at s h e d es cr i b e d a t t r i al

. Co n s eq u en t ly

, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n ot

ab u s e i t s d i s cret i o n i n ex cl u d in g t h e ev id en ce o f t h e v ict i m ’ s p ri o r al l eg at i o n o f

m o les t at i o n b y

h er fat h er t o es t ab l i s h h er k n owl ed g e o f s ex u al act s

.

Val l ejo al s o co n t en d s t h at t he v i ct i m ’ s k n owl ed g e o f th e p ro ces s o f

i n v e s ti g at i n g an al leg at i o n o f m o l es t at i o n i s rel ev an t b ecau s e it ex p l ai n s h o w s h e

co u ld h av e d ev is ed a p l an t o rem o ve V al l ejo fro m h e r l i f e b y m ak i ng a fal s e

al l eg at i o n ag ai n s t h im

. Val l ejo arg u es t hat t h e ev i d en ce o f t h e pri o r al leg at i o n wo u ld

h av e u n d erm i n e d t h e v i ct i m ’ s cred i b i l i t y by ex p l ai ni n g h o w a ch i ld co ul d h av e

fab ri cat ed t h e al l eg at i o n s ag ai n s t h i m

.

Co n trary t o Val l ejo ’ s arg u m en t

, ev i d en ce t h at t h e v i ct i m m ad e an al l eg at i o n o f

ch i l d m o les t at i o n ag ai n s t her f a t h e r at t h e ag e o f s i x d o es n o t t en d to (a) s ho w h o w

t h e v i ct i m

, at th e ag e of s i x t e e n

, wo u l d h av e th e kn o wl ed g e n eces sary t o co m e u p

15wi t h a p l an t o fal s el y accu s e Val l ejo o f m o l es ti n g h er o r (b ) o t h erwi s e cal l i n to

q u es ti o n h er cred i bi li t y i n t h at reg ard

. In d eed

, ev i d en ce t h at t h e v i ct i m h ad p ri o r

ex p eri en ce wi t h t h e p ro ces s o f m ak i n g an al l eg at i o n o f ch il d m o l es tat i on was wh o l l y

i rrel ev an t t o t h e is s u e o f wh et her Val l ejo co m m i t t ed t h e act s al l eg ed b y t h e v i ct i m an d

was t h u s p ro p erl y ex cl u ded b y t h e t ri al co u rt

. See Jo n es

, 3 0 5 Ga. at 7 5 3 (2 ) (c) (t ri al

co u rt d id n ot ab u s e i t s d i s cret i o n b y ex cl ud i n g p ho t o g rap h t h at d i d n o t h el p d et erm i n e

wh et h er t h e d efen dan t o r an o th er m an co m m i tt ed t h e cri m e). Ev en i f t h e ev i d en ce t h at

t h e vi ct im h ad m ad e a p ri o r al l eg at i o n of ch i l d m o l es tat i o n arg u ab l y b o re s o m e

m i n i m al rel ev an ce t o V al l ejo ’ s g u i l t i n th is cas e, th e t ri al co u rt a c t e d w i t h i n i t s

d i s cret i o n in co n cl u d i n g t h at t h e m i n o r p ro bat i v e v al u e o f an y s u ch ev i den ce w a s

“ s u b s t an 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 i o n o f t h e i s s u es

,

o r m i s l ead in g th e ju ry o r b y co n s i d erat i on s o f u n d ue d el ay [o r] was t e o f t i m e,” wh i ch

t h e t ri al co u rt i m

p l i ci tl y d i d b y ci t i n g OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 i n i ts an al y s i s

. Co n s eq u en t l y

,

ev en a s s u m i n g t h e d i s sen t i s co rrect t h at t h e Rap e Sh iel d St at u t e d o es n ot b ar t h e

ad m i s s i o n o f t h e p ri o r al l eg at i o n ev i d en ce, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t err in ex cl u d i n g t h e

ev i d en ce u n der t h e ap p l i cab l e ev i d en t i ary ru l es

.

3

. Val l ejo al l eg es t hat h is t ri al co u n s el ren dered co n s t i t u t i o n al l y i n e f fect i v e

as s i s tan ce i n t h ree i n st an ces

. To p rev ai l o n t h es e cl ai m s

, he m u s t s h o w b ot h t h at h i s

16t ri al co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce w as d efi ci en t an d t h at h e s u ffered p reju d i ce as a res u l t

.

See S t r ickl an d v. W

a s h i n g t o n

, 46 6 U. S. 6 6 8, 68 7

, 6 94 (III) (1 0 4 SCt 2 0 5 2

, 8 0 LE2 d

6 7 4 ) (1 9 8 4 ). If an ap p e l l a n t f a i l s t o s at i s fy ei t h er pro n g o f th e S t ri ckl a n d tes t

, “ i t i s

n o t i n cu m

b en t u p o n t h is Co u rt t o ex am i n e t h e ot h er p ro n g.” S mi t h v. S t at e

, 2 9 6 Ga.

7 3 1

, 7 3 3 (2 ) (7 7 0 SE2 d 6 1 0 ) (2 0 1 5 ) (ci t at i on an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). To es t ab l i s h

d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce, an ap p el l an t “ m u s t o v erco m e t h e s t ro n g p res u m p t i on t h at h i s

. . . co u ns el ’ s co n d u ct fal l s wi t h i n t h e b ro ad ran g e o f reas o nab l e pro fes s i o n al co n d u ct

an d sh o w t h at h i s co u n s el p erfo rm ed i n an o b ject i v el y u n reas o nab le way ” i n l i g ht o f

al l t h e ci rcu m s tan ces an d p rev ai l i n g n o rm s . Id

. (ci t at io n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

To es t a b l i s h p reju d i ce, an ap p el l an t m u s t sh o w t h at “ t h ere is a reas o n ab l e

p ro b ab i l i t y t h at

, b u t fo r co u ns el ’ s u n p ro fes s i o n al erro rs

, t h e res u l t o f t he pro ceed i n g

wo u l d h av e b een d ifferen t .” S t r i ckl a n d

, 4 6 6 U. S. at 69 4 (I I I ) (B). “ In rev i ewi n g a

l o wer co urt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n o f a cl ai m o f i n effect i v e as s is t an ce o f co u n sel , we g i v e

d efere n c e t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fact u al fi n di n gs

, wh i ch are up h el d o n ap p eal u n l es s

cl earl y erro n eo u s; h o wev er, we rev i ew t h e lo wer co u rt ’ s leg al co n cl u s i o n s d e n o v o.”

W a s h i n g t o n v. S t a t e

, 2 76 Ga. 6 5 5

, 6 5 8 (3 ) (5 8 1 SE2 d 51 8 ) (2 00 3 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Aft er rev i ewi n g Val l ejo ’ s cl ai m s i n acco rd an ce wi th th es e s t an d ard s, w e co n c l u d e

17t h at Val l ejo h as n o t m et h i s b u r d en o f d em o ns t rat in g t h at hi s t ri al co u n s el was

i n effect i v e.

(a ) Fa i l ur e t o o b

j ect t o t h e S t at e’s co m m e n t o n t h e vi ct i m’s kn o wl ed g e of

s exu a l a ct

s

. Du ri n g cl o s i n g arg u m e n t

, t h e St at e d i scu s s ed t h e v i ct i m ’ s t es t i m o ny

reg ard i n g a s p eci fi c act of o ral s ex i n wh i ch Val lejo fo rced h er t o en g ag e, an d s t at ed

,

“ I k no w t h ey gro w u p f

a s t b u t t h at ’ s ju s t way t o o m u ch k n o wl ed g e fo r a ch i l d.”

Val l ejo arg u es t h at hi s t ri al co u n s el ’ s fai l ure to o bjec t t o t h i s co m m en t an d m o v e

ei t h er fo r a m i st ri al o r t o reo p en t he ev i d en ce t o perm i t Val l ejo t o p res en t ev i d en ce

o f t he vi ct i m ’ s rel at i o n sh i p w i t h a cl as s m at e an d o f her p ri or ab u s e b y h er fat h er

am ou n t ed t o d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce.

As d i s cu s s ed i n Di v i s io n 2

, p ri o r t o t ri al

, Val l ejo fi l ed a p l ead i n g t i t l ed

, “ No t i ce

o f Defe n d a n t ’s I n t en t t o In t ro d u ce Act s o f Pri o r Sex u al Beh av i o r.” In ad d i t i o n to

s eek i n g to ad m it e v i d e n c e t h at t h e v i ct i m m ad e a p ri o r al l eg at i o n of m o l es t at i o n

ag ai n s t h er b i o l o g i cal fat h er, V al l ejo al s o s o u gh t to i n tro d u ce ev i d en ce t h at DNA

t es t i n g of t h e v i ct i m ’ s b ed s heet s h o wed t h at s h e h ad en gag ed i n s ex u al act iv i t y wi th

an o th er m al e d u ri n g t h e s am e t i m e p eri o d i n w h i ch sh e al l eg ed Val l ejo m o l es t ed h er.

Val l ejo fu rt h er s ou g h t t o ad m i t ev i d en ce t h at h e co nfro n t ed t h e vi ct i m ab o u t h av i n g

s ex wi t h a cl as s m at e.

18Fi n d i n g t h e Rap e Sh i el d St at u t e ap p l icab l e, t h e t ri al co u rt ex cl u d ed ev i d en ce

o f m u lt i p l e s o u rces of DNA on t h e b ed s h eet b u t ru l ed t h at i f t h e S t a t e o f f e r e d

ev i d en ce o bt ai n ed fro m th e b ed s h eet at t ri al

, Val l ejo w ou l d b e p erm it ted t o in t ro d uce

ev i d en ce o f t h e o t h er D NA fo u n d o n t h e b ed s h eet pu rs u an t t o t h e “ s o u rce o f

e v i d e n ce” ex cep t i o n t o th e Rap e Sh i el d St at u t e. Th e t ri al co u rt al l o wed V al l ejo t o

o ffer ev i d en ce t h at h e an d t he v i ct i m h ad a co n fl i ct co n cern i n g h er rel at i o n s h i p wi th

an o th er s t u d en t an d t h at th e v i ct i m m ad e an o u t cry aft er Val l ejo t hreat en ed t o o b t ai n

h er tex t m es sag e hi s to ry

, b u t p ro h i b i ted Val l ejo fro m o fferi n g an y ev i d en ce o f an y

s ex u al o r o t h er p h y si cal rel at i on s h i p b et ween t h e v i ct im an d an o t h er s t u d en t

.

Val l ejo co n t en d s t h at i f h i s t ri al co u ns el h ad o bject ed t o t h e St at e’ s arg u m en t

reg ard i n g t h e v i ct i m ’ s k n o wl ed g e o f s ex u al act s

, t h e t ri al co u rt “ s h o ul d h av e” ei t h er

g ran t ed a m i s t ri al o r al l o wed Val l ejo t o reo pen t h e ev i d en ce an d p res en t th e res u l t s

o f t h e s ci en t i fi c t es t i n g of th e v i ct im ’ s b ed s h eet a n d e v i d e n ce o f t h e v ict i m ’ s p as t

al l eg at i o n s o f m o l es t at i o n ag ai ns t h er b i o l o g ical fat h er. W e d o n o t ag ree.

In p ro secu t i o n s fo r ag g rav at ed ch i ld m o les t at io n a n d c h il d m o l es t at i o n,

Geo rg i a’ s Rap e Sh i el d St at u t e p ro h i b i t s t es t i m o n y reg ard i n g a co m p l ai n i n g wi t n es s ’ s

p as t sex ual b eh av i o r, wi t h l i m i t ed ex cep t i o n s

. OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 1 2

. Th o s e ex cep t i on s

are:

19(1 ) Ev id en ce of s p eci fi c i n s t an ces o f a v i ct i m ’ s or co m p lai n i n g wi t n es s ’ s

s ex u al b eh av i o r, i f o ffered to p ro v e t h a t s o m eo n e o t h er th an th e

d efen d an t was t h e s o u rce o f s em en

, i n ju ry

, or o t h er p h y s i cal ev i d en ce;

(2 ) Ev i d en ce o f s p eci fi c in s t an ces o f a v i ct i m ’ s o r co m p l ai n i n g wi t n es s ’ s

s ex u al b eh av i o r wi t h res p ect t o t h e d efen d an t i f it s u p p o rt s an i n feren ce

t h at t h e acc u s ed co ul d h av e reas o n ab l y bel i ev ed t h at t h e co m pl ai n i n g

wi t n es s co n s en t ed t o t h e co n d u ct co m pl ai ned o f i n t h e p ro s ecu ti o n ;

(3 ) Ev i d en ce o f s p eci fi c i n s t an ces o f a v i ct i m ’ s o r co m p lai n i n g wi t n es s ’ s

s ex u al b eh av i o r wi t h res p ect t o t h e d e f e n d an t or an o th er p ers o n i f

o ffered b y

t h e p ro s ecu t o r; an d

( 4 ) Ev i d en ce wh o s e [s i c] ex cl u s i o n wo u l d v i o l at e t h e d efen d an t ’s

co n s t i t ut i o n al ri gh t s

.

OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 1 2 (b ). Ev en if t h e ev i d en ce o f t h e s ci en t i fi c t es ti n g of t h e b ed s h eet

were rel ev an t t o t h e v i ct im ’ s kn o wl ed g e o f s ex ual act s

, it was i n ad m i s s i b l e u n l es s i t

fel l w i t hi n o n e o f t h e l i m it ed ex cep t i o ns i n th e Rap e Sh i e l d S t at u t e. See W h i t e v.

S t a t e

, 30 5 G a. 1 1 1

, 1 1 8 (2 ) (8 2 3 SE2 d 7 9 4 ) (2 0 1 9 ) (n o rel ev an ce ex cep t i o n t o Rap e

Sh i el d St at u t e). On ap p eal

, V al lejo h as n o t es t ab l i s h ed th at an y ex cep t i o n to t h e Rap e

Sh i el d St at u t e wo u l d h a v e ap p l i ed here if h i s t ri al co u n s el h ad o bject ed t o t h e

p ro s ec u t o r’ s s t at em en t reg ard i ng t h e v i ct i m ’ s s ex u al k n o wl ed g e an d as k ed t h e t ri al

co u rt t o reo p en t he ev i d en ce. Fu rt h erm o re, as d i s cu s s ed i n Di v i s io n 2

, ev i d en ce o f t h e

v i ct i m ’ s p ri o r al l eg at i o n ag ai n st h er fat her i s n o t rel ev an t t o ex p l ai n h er k n o wl ed g e

20o f t he s ex u al act s th at s h e des cri b ed at t ri al

. Th erefo re, t h at ev id en ce wo ul d n o t h av e

b een ad m i s s i bl e ev en i f Val l ejo ’ s t ri al co u n s el h ad o b ject ed t o t h e St at e’ s arg u m en t

reg ard i n g t h e v i ct i m ’ s s ex u al k n o wl ed g e. “ Th e fai l u re t o m ak e a m eri t l es s m o t i o n o r

o b ject i on d o es n ot p ro v i d e a b as i s u p on wh i ch t o fi n d i n effect i v e a s s is t an ce o f

co u ns el .” W

h it e v. S t a t e

, 3 0 7 G a. 8 8 2

, 8 8 9 (3 ) (c) (8 3 8 SE2 d 8 2 8 ) (2 0 20 ) (ci tat i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i tt ed ). V al lejo t herefo re h as fai led t o d e m on s t rat e i n effect i v e

as s i s tan ce o n t h is g ro u n d

.

Fu rt herm o re, Val l ejo h as n o t carri ed hi s b u rd en of s h owi n g t hat h i s t ri al

co u ns el p erfo rm ed defi ci en t ly by fai l i n g t o m o ve fo r a m i s tri al

. “ W h et h er t o g ran t a

m o ti o n fo r m i s t ri al i s w i t hi n t h e tri al co u rt ’ s s o un d d i s cret i o n

, an d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s

ex erci s e o f t h at d i s cret io n wi l l n o t b e d i st urb ed o n ap p eal u nl es s a m i s t ri al i s es s en t i al

t o p res erv e t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’s ri g h t t o a fai r t ri al .” Hi ll v. St at e

, 3 1 0 Ga. 18 0

, 1 8 9 (6 )

(8 5 0 SE 2 d 1 1 0 ) (2 0 2 0 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). Val l ejo h as n ot

d em o n s t rat ed t h at t h e t ri al co u rt wo u l d h av e g ran t ed a m o t i o n fo r a m i st ri al b as ed o n

t h e St at e’ s p as s i n g c o m m en t m ad e d u ri n g cl o s in g arg u m en t i f h i s tri al co u n s el h ad

req u es t ed o n e. “ Becau s e t h e t ri al co u rt wo u l d h av e a c t e d wi t h in i t s di s cret i o n in

d en y i n g a m o t io n fo r m i st ri al

, t h e fai l u re o f [Val lejo ’ s ] t ri al co u n s el t o m ak e a m o t i o n

21t h at t h e co u rt was au t h o ri zed to d en y do es n o t es t ab l is h i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce b y t h at

co u ns el .” Id . at 1 9 0 (6 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at io n o m it t ed ).

(b ) Fa i l u r e to o b

j ect t o t h e S t at e’s m i s s t a t emen t o f t he l a w o f r ea so n ab l e d

o u b t

.

Val l ejo n ex t al leg es h i s t ri al co u n s el w as i n effect iv e fo r fai l i ng t o o b ject t o th e St at e’ s

p u rp ort ed m i s s t at em en t s of l aw reg ard i n g reas o nab l e d o u b t m ad e d u ri n g cl o s i n g

arg u m en t . Sp eci fi cal l y , Val l ejo t ak es i s s u e wi t h t h e fo l l owi n g:

If y o u b el i ev e th e d efen d an t i s g u i l t y

. . . y o u ’ re au t h o ri zed t o co n v i ct

.

If y o u b el iev e t h e d efen d an t i s gu i l t y b ut y o u wi sh t o h av e a l i t t l e m o re

ev i d en ce, y o u ’ re s t i l l au t h o ri zed t o co n v i ct b ecau s e ev ery t h i ng y o u ’ ve

h eard ab o ut t h is cas e y o u h eard i n t h i s co u rt ro o m

. So i f y ou bel i ev e he’ s

g u i l ty

, an d y o u wi s h y o u h ad a l i t t l e m o re, y ou s t il l bel i ev e h e’ s g u i l t y

.

Yo u ’ re au t h o ri zed t o co n v i ct

.

Rel y i n g o n Deb el b o t v. S t a t e

, 3 0 8 Ga. 1 6 5

, 1 6 7 (8 39 SE2 d 5 1 3 ) (2 0 2 0), in wh i ch t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt hel d t h a t d e f en s e co un s el was i neffect i v e fo r fai li n g t o o b ject t o a

p ro s ecu to r’ s “ o b v i o u s l y wro n g ” d es cri pt i o n o f reas o n ab l e do u b t d u ri n g cl o s i n g

arg u m en t

, Val l ejo co nt en d s t h at h i s t ri al co u ns el ’ s fai lu re t o o b j ect here co ns t i t u t ed

d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce. In h i s es t i m at i o n, i f tri al co u n s el h ad o b ject ed

, t h e t ri al co u rt

“ wo u l d h av e i n fo rm e d t h e ju ry t h at i t wo u l d i n s tru ct [t h e ju ry ] o n t h e l aw o f

reas on ab l e d o u b t an d t h at [t h e ju ry wo ul d b e] b o u nd t o fo l l o w t ho s e i n s t ru ct i o n s .”

22At t h e m o t i o n fo r new t ri al heari n g

, o n e o f Val l ejo ’ s l awy ers t es t i fi e d t h at

,

al t h o u g h h e al s o b el i ev ed th e St at e’ s at tem p t t o d efi n e p ro o f b ey o nd a reas o n ab l e

d o u b t was m i sl ead i n g

, he b el i ev ed h e h ad s u ffi ci en t l y ad d res sed t h e i s su e i n h i s

cl o s i ng arg u m en t . Du ri n g cl o s i n g arg u m en t , t h e l awy er t ol d t h e ju ry :

At t h e en d o f t h e d ay th e J u d g e wi l l t el l y o u

, at t h e en d o f t h e d ay i f y o u r

m i n d s are wav eri n g, y o ur m i n d s are u n s et t l ed o r u n s at i s fi ed t h at i s a

d o u b t o f t h e l aw an d y o u h av e o ne d u t y an d t h at ’ s a d u t y t o acq u i t

. If

y o u r m i n d s are wav eri n g

, u ns et t l ed o r u n s a t i s fi ed t h at i s a reas o n ab l e

d o u b t

. An d t h at ’ s a d ou b t o f th e l aw an d y ou h av e t o acq u it

. I d on ’ t care

wh at [t h e pro s ecu t o r] say s

, h e’ s w ro n g

. Th e J u d g e wi l l t el l y o u t h e l aw

an d t h at ’ s wh at i t i s

.

Th e reco rd s h o w s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt co rrect l y i n st ru ct ed t h e j u r y o n t h e

p res u m p t i o n o f i n n o cen ce, b u rd en o f p ro of, an d reas o n ab l e d o u b t

. Th e t ri al co u rt

fu rt her ch arg ed t h e ju ry

t h at i t was b o u n d t o fo l l o w t h e co urt ’ s i n s t ru ct i o n s

.

“ [T] h e m ak i n g o f o b

ject i o n s fal l s wi th i n th e real m o f t ri al tact i cs an d s t rat eg y

an d t h us u su al l y

p ro v i d es n o b as i s fo r rev ers al o f a co n v i ct i o n .” M o o n v. S t a t e , 2 8 8

Ga. 5 0 8

, 5 1 6 (9 ) (7 0 5 SE 2 d 6 4 9 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (ci t at io n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Fu rt h erm o re, t h e t ri al co u rt co rrect l y ch arg ed t h e ju ry on reas o n ab le d o u b t, an d “ we

p res u m e t h at ju ro rs fo l l ow t he l aw.” Ven t ur i n o v. S t a t e

, 3 0 6 G a

. 3 9 1

, 40 0 (4 ) (8 3 0

SE2 d 1 1 0 ) (2 0 19 ). Th u s, an y erro r i n t h e St at e’ s ch aract eri zat i o n of reas o n ab l e d o u bt

23was cu red b y th e t ri al co u rt ’ s i n s t ru ct i o n s to t h e ju ry

. See Dr a u g hn v. S t a t e

, 3 1 1 Ga.

3 7 8

, 3 83 (2 ) (b ) (8 5 8 SE2 d 8 ) (2 0 2 1 ) (wh ere th e ju ry ch arg e ex p l ai n ed p res u m p t i o n

o f i n n o cen ce, b u rd en o f pro o f, an d reas o n ab le d o u b t a c c u r a t e ly an d at l en g t h

, an y

erro r i n t h e St at e’ s ch aract eri zat i o n o f reas o n ab l e d o u b t was cu red ). “ As s u m i n g

wi t h o u t d eci d i n g t h at [Val l ejo ’ s ] t ri al co u n sel was d efi ci en t fo r n o t o bject in g t o t h e

p ro s ecu to r’ s s t a t em en ts ab o u t reas o n ab le d o u bt

, [Val l ejo ] h as fai l ed to s h o w a

reas on ab l e p ro b ab i li t y t h a t t h e r e s u l t o f h i s t ri al wo u l d hav e b een d i fferen t b u t fo r

t h o s e s ta t e m e nts. ” I d. ( f

o otnote om itte d). Co n s eq uen tl y

, Val l ejo h as fai led t o es t ab l i s h

p reju d i ce, an d t hi s cl ai m

o f i n effect i v e as s i s tan ce fai l s

.

(c) Fa i l ur e t o ch a l l en g e “p a r t i a l ma tch ” evi den ce. A t t ri al

, a Geo rg i a Bu reau

o f In ves t ig at i o n fo ren s i c b i o l og i s t t es t i fi ed t hat DNA on a wh i te t o wel 7 fo u nd i n t h e

v i ct i m ’ s b at h ro o m m at ch ed Val l ejo ’ s D NA. DNA fro m an ot h er i n d i v i d u al was

i d en t i fi ed o n t h e s am e t owel . Th e fo ren s i c b i o l og i s t t es t i fi ed t h at fo r:

[t ] h e s eco n d i n d i v i d ual I o n l y o b t ai n ed t h ree m ark ers at t hree d ifferen t

l o cat i o n s

. So ju s t t o p ut t h at i n t o referen ce we t es t ed fo r 1 6 l o cat i o ns an d

were ab l e t o o n l y o b tai n i n fo rm at i o n at t h ree l o cat i o n s

. So t h at m ean s

7 Th e vi ct i m t es t i fi ed t h at t h e ni g ht b efo re s h e rep o rt ed V al l ejo ’ s ab u s e t o h er

s ch o ol g u i d an ce co un s el or, Val l ejo h ad s ex wi t h h er, cl ean ed h i m s el f o ff w i th a wh i t e

t o wel

, an d l eft t h e t o wel o n t h e fl o o r o f h e r b at h ro o m

. A wh it e to wel fro m t h e

v i ct i m ’ s b at h ro o m

was t ak en i n t o ev i den ce b y l aw en fo rcem en t

.

24t h at t h at p ers o n was o n l y co nt ri bu t i n g a v ery

, v ery sm al l am o u n t o f

DNA t o t h e s am

p l e. Bu t t h e i n fo rm at i o n t h at was t h ere at th o s e t h ree

l o cat i o n s m at ch ed b ack t o t h e p ro fi l e o f [t h e v i ct i m ]

.

Val l ejo al l eg es t h at h is t r i al co u n s el p erfo rm ed d efi ci en t l y b y fai l in g t o m o v e to

ex cl u d e an y m en ti o n o f a “ p a r t i a l m at ch ” b et ween t h e s eco nd DNA p ro fi l e o n t h e

t o wel an d t h e v i ct i m ’ s kn o w n D N A p ro fi le. Val l ejo arg u es t h at hi s t ri al co u n s el

s h o u ld hav e m o v ed t o ex cl u d e t h i s “ p art i al m at ch ” ev id en ce, wh i ch he ch aract eri zes

as “ m is l ead i n g an d s ci en t i fi cal l y i n v al i d ,” p u r s u an t t o OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3

, o r

ch al l en g ed i t s s ci en t i fi c rel i ab i li t y p u rs u an t t o Ha r per v. S t a t e

, 2 4 9 G a. 51 9

, 5 2 5 (1 )

(2 9 2 SE2 d 3 8 9) (1 9 8 2 ). O u r rev i ew o f t h e reco rd s h ows t h at t ri al co u n s el em p l o y ed

a d i fferen t s t rat eg y

t o ch al l en g e t h i s ev i d en ce.

At t h e m o ti o n f

o r n ew t ri al heari n g

, al l t h ree of Val l ejo ’ s tri al at t o rn ey s

t es t i fi ed t h a t t h ey fo u nd t h e “ p art i al m at ch ” ev i d en ce m i s l ead in g. Ho w ev er, t ri al

c o u n s e l a l s o t es t i fi ed t h at t hey d i d n o t co ns i d er a Ha r p er ch al l en ge an ap p ro p ri at e

m ean s b y wh i ch t o co n t es t t h e ev i d en ce. In st ead

, co u ns el ch al l en g ed th i s ev i d en ce by

ag g res s i v el y an d t h o r o u g h l y cro s s -ex am i n i n g t h e G BI fo ren s i c bi o l o g i s t

, cal l i n g a

d efen s e ex p ert t o reb u t t he t es t i m o ny o f t h e fo ren s i c b io l o g i s t

, a n d at t ack i n g t h e

cred i b i l i t y o f th e “ part i al m at ch ” t es t i m o n y i n cl os i n g arg u m en t

. On cro s s

25ex am i n at i o n

, Val l ejo ’ s t ri al co un s el el i ci t e d te stim ony f r om the G B I f

or e nsic bi o l o g i s t

t h at s he co u l d n ot s ay t o a reas on ab l e d eg ree of sci en t i fi c cert ai n t y t h at t h e v i ct i m ’ s

DN A w a s o n t he t o wel

. In fact

, s h e t es ti fi ed t h at s h e wo u l d d i s ag ree wi t h an y

arg u m en t m ad e b y th e St at e “ th at t h is t o wel i n fact i d e n t i fi es [t h e v i ct i m ’ s ] DNA.

Val l ejo ’ s ex pert ag reed

. Du ri n g cl o s i n g arg u m en t

, Val l ejo ’ s t ri al co u n s el h i g h l i g h t ed

t h e m i sl ead i n g n at u re o f t h e t es t i m o n y

, n o t i n g t h at “ i t to o k

. . . cro s s -ex am i n at i o n o f

t h at wi t n es s

. . . t o act u al l y bri ng fo rt h t o y o u

, wel l, wh en I s ay m at ch

, I d o n ’ t real l y

m ean m at ch

, I d o n ’t k n ow [wh o s e D NA] t h at i s .” W e can n o t s ay t h i s s t rat eg y was

u n reas o nab l e.

“ A d efen d an t wh o co n t en d s a st rat eg i c d eci s i o n co n s ti t ut es d efi c i e n t

p erfo rm an ce m

u s t sh o w t h at n o co m

pet en t at t o rn ey

, u n d er si m i l ar ci rcu m s t an ces

,

wo u l d h av e m ad e i t .” Da vi s v. St a t e

, 3 06 Ga. 1 4 0

, 1 4 8 (3 ) (g ) (8 29 SE2 d 3 2 1) (2 0 1 9 )

(ci t at i o n an d p u nct u at i on o m i t t ed ). “ Co u n s el ’ s r eas o nab l en es s is ev al u at ed in

co n j u n ct i o n w i t h th e at t en d an t ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h e ch al l en g ed co n d u ct an d ju d g ed

fro m co u n s el ’ s p ers p ect i v e at t h e t im e w i t h ev ery effo rt m ad e t o e l i m i n at e t h e

d i s t o rt i n g effect s o f h in d s i g h t .” Id

. at 1 4 3 -1 4 4 (3 ) (ci tat i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

“ Th u s

, d efi ci en cy can n o t b e d em o n s t rat ed b y m erel y arg u i n g th at t h ere i s an o t h er, o r

ev en a bet t er, way fo r co u ns el t o h av e p erfo rm ed .” Id

. at 1 4 4

. Val lejo ’ s t ri al co u n s el

26p u rs u ed m

u l t i p l e av en u es b y w h i ch t o ch al l en g e th e “ part ial m at ch ” t es t i m o n y : cro s s

ex am i n at i o n

, t es t i m o n y b y Val l ejo ’ s ex p ert

, an d cl o s i n g arg u m en t

. V al l ejo ’ s cl ai m

t h at h is t ri al co u n s el s h o u l d h av e ch al l en g ed t h i s ev i den ce t h ro ug h ot her m ean s i s

m erel y an arg um en t t hat th ere was an ot h er, o r b et t er, way fo r co u n s el t o h av e

p erfo rm ed

. Co ns eq u en t l y

, V al l ejo h as n o t d em on s t rat ed t h at h i s tri al co u n s el

p erfo rm ed d efi ci en t l y , an d t h i s cl ai m o f i n effect i v e as s is t an ce al s o fai l s

.

4

. Fi n al l y

, Val l ejo arg u es t h at t h e cu m u l at i v e effect o f erro rs b y t h e t ri al co u rt

an d t ri al co u n s el warran t s a new t ri al

. “ Al t h o u g h we m ay n o w co n s i d er wh et h er t h e

cu m u l at i v e effect o f e r ro rs req u i res a n ew tri al

, w h ere

. . . t here are n ot m u l t i p l e

erro rs

, t here can b e n o cu m u l at i v e erro r.” W

i l l i a ms v. S t a t e

, 3 5 8 Ga. Ap p

. 1 5 2

, 1 5 7

(c) (8 5 3 SE2 d 3 8 3 ) (2 0 2 1). Th e o n l y p o t en t i al erro r t h at we h av e ei th er fo u n d o r

p ret erm i t t ed was t ri al co u ns el ’ s fai l u re t o o b ject t o t h e p ro secu t o r’ s st at em en t s

reg ard i n g reas o n ab le d o u b t d u ri n g cl o s i n g arg u m en t

. Becau se we h a v e fo u n d o n l y

27o n e p o t en t i al erro r at t ri al o n t h e g r o u n d s as s ert ed b y Val l ejo

, Val l ejo ’ s cl ai m o f

cu m u l at i v e erro r fai l s. See i d

.

Ju d g men t a ff i r m ed

. Di l l ar d

, P.J., a n d Mer ci er

, Rees e, B r o wn

, a n d Ho d

g es

, JJ.,

co n cu r

. Go b ei l, J., co n cu r s f u l l y a n d s p eci a l l y. P i p ki n, J., co n cu r

s f u ll y i n D i vi s i on s

3 a n d 4

, a n d co n cu r

s sp eci a l l y i n Di vi s i o n s 1 a n d 2

. Do yl e, P.J., co n cu r

s f u l ly i n

Di vi s i o n s 3 a n d 4 , a n d

j o i n s i n j u d

g m en t o n ly wi th Ju d

g e Pi p ki n in Di vi s i o n s 1 a n d

2

. Pi n so n

, J., co n cu r

s i n Di vi si o n s 2

, 3, a nd 4

, a n d c o n c u r s i n j ud g men t o n l

y in

Di vi s i o n 1

. Ri ckma n

, C.J., Ba r n es

, P.J., Mi l l er

, P.J., a n d Ma r

kl e, J., co n cu r in

Di vi s i o n s 2

, 3

, a n d 4

, a n d d i s s en t wi th o ut o pi n i o n in Di vi s i o n 1

. McFa d den

, P.J.,

d i s s en t s

.

28

# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A1 11 0 . VALLEJ O v . THE STATE.

G O B E I L

, J u d g e, co n cu rri n g fu l l y an d s p eci al l y

.

I co n cu r fu ll y i n t h e m ajo ri t y ’ s o pi n i o n

. Th e d i s s e n t a s s ert s t h at i n S t a t e v.

Bu r ns

, 3 0 6 Ga. 11 7, 1 2 3 -1 2 4 (2 ) (8 2 9 SE2 d 3 6 7) (2 0 1 9 ), o u r Su p rem e Co urt reject ed

t h e ru l e es t ab l i s h ed i n S

mi t h v. S t a t e

, 2 5 9 G a. 1 3 5 (3 7 7 SE2 d 1 5 8 ) (1 9 8 9 ), req u i ri n g

a t ri a l co u rt to m ak e an i n it i al d et erm i n at i o n t h at a reas on ab le p ro b ab i l i t y of fal s i t y

ex i s t s b efo re ev id en ce o f a v i ct i m ’ s p ri o r fal s e al l eg at i o ns can be ad m i t ted

. Li k e t h e

m ajo ri ty

, I d i sag ree. I wri t e s ep arat el y t o s h are ad d it io n al t h o u gh t s i n t h i s area p o s t

Bu r ns

.Th e Bu r n s Co u rt ch aract eri zed t h e co ns t i t u t io n al h o ld i n g i n S mi th as “ a p er s e

ru l e o f ad m i s s ib i l i t y fo r ev i d en ce o f p ri or fal s e al leg at i on s wh er e f a l si t y h a s b een

e s t a b l i s h ed

, n o twi th st an d i n g o t h er ru l es o f ev i d en ce.” Bu r ns

, 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 2 1 ( 2 )

(em p h as i s s u p p l ied ). Th e Bu r n s Co u rt wen t o n t o o v erru l e th e co n st i tu t i o n al h o l d i n g

i n S mi th , wh i l e cl ari fy i n g t h at “ t h e ev i d en ti ary h o ld i n g [ 1 ] o f Smi t h h as s urv i v ed t h e

en act m en t of Geo rg i a’ s n ew Ev i d en ce Co d e.” Id

. at 1 2 0-1 2 4 (2 ). W h i le no t ex p l i ci t

i n Bu r n s

, t h e reas o n ab l e p r o b ab i l i t y o f fal s i t y t es t can n o t b e co n si dered p art o f t h e

co n st i t u t io n al h o l d i n g i n S mi t h

, as s u g g es t ed b y t h e d is s en t

, fo r th e s i m p l e reas o n t h at

a co u rt h as t o m ak e a d et erm in at i o n o f fal si t y “ befo re fal s it y h as b een es t ab l i s h ed ,”

wh i ch i s a n e v i d e n t i ary i s s u e. Id

. at 1 2 1 (2 ). Im p o rt an t l y

, t h e Bu r n s Co u rt d i d n ot

n eed t o reach th e i s s u e o f wh et h er th e d efen d an t i n t h at cas e h ad s h o wn a reas o n ab l e

p ro b a bi l it y o f fal si t y b ecau s e t h e v i ct i m ad m i t t ed t h at a p ri o r al l eg at i o n o f s ex u al

ab u se was “ m ad e u p ,” an d t he t ri al co u rt reco g n i zed th at t h e vi ct i m ’ s “ at t em p t ed rap e

s t at em en t was fal s e.” 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 1 8

, 1 2 5 (3 ). W i th t h e fal s i t y of t he pri o r al l eg at i on s

al read y es t ab l i sh ed i n Bu r n s

, t h e Co u rt ex p l ai n ed “ th ere i s n o co n s t i t u t i o n al

1 P o s t

- Bu rn s

, t he ex act s co p e o f t h e ev i d en t i ary h o l d i n g in Smi t h rem ai n s

u n cl ear, b u t at a m i n im

u m i t s t at es t hat ev i den ce o f a fal s e al l eg at i o n i s n o t b arred by

t h e Rap e Sh iel d St at u t e

. B u r n s

, 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 1 8 -1 1 9 (1 ); S mi t h

, 2 5 9 Ga. at 1 3 7 -1 3 8

(1 ).

2i m

p ed im en t t o ap pl y i ng OCGA § 2 4 -4

- 4 0 3 ” i n d et erm i n i n g wh et h er th e ev i d en ce

“ m ay b e ex cl u ded i f i t s p ro b at i v e v al u e i s s u bs t an t i al l y o ut wei g h ed b y th 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 th e i s s u es

, or m i s lead i n g t h e ju ry o r b y co ns i d erat i on s

o f u n d u e d el ay

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

.

at 1 2 5 -1 2 6 (3 ) & n . 4 (q uo t i n g OCGA § 2 4-4 -4 0 3). By co n t ras t , i n t h e i n s t an t cas e,

as was t h e cas e i n S t a t e v. Pa r ks

, t h e t ri al co u rt m ad e an in i t i al det erm in at io n t h at t h e

d efen d an t h ad f

a i l e d t o m eet h i s b u rd en “ t o es tab l i s h a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y o f

fal s it y ” wi t h res p ect t o t h e vi ct i m ’ s p ri o r al l eg at io n s o f ab u se, an d t h u s, d eem ed t h i s

ev i d en ce i n ad m i ss ib l e. 3 50 Ga. Ap p

. 7 9 9

, 81 2 -8 1 3 (2 ) ( 8 30 SE2 d 2 84 ) (2 0 1 9 ).

Becau s e t h e Bu r n s Co urt d i d n o t reach t h e reas o n ab l e p ro b ab il i t y of fal s i t y t es t

, t h i s

s t an d ard rem ai n s i n t act

. Fo r t h i s s am e reas o n

, I b el i ev e t hat o u r h o ld i n g i n Di v i s i o n

2 o f Pa rks rem ai n s v iab l e p o s t

- Bu r n s

.

W h at rem ai n s u n cl ear p o s t

- Bu r n s i s wh et her t h e reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y o f

fal s it y t es t i s a t h res ho l d is s u e, an d o n ly aft er fal s i t y h as b een es t ab l is h ed can t h e t ri al

co u rt em p l o y “ an y nu m

b er of fam i l i ar an d u n q u es t io n ab ly co n s t it u ti o n al ev i d en ti ary

ru l es [i n cl u d i n g OCG A § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 ] t hat au th o ri zes t h e ex cl u s i o n o f rel ev an t

ev i d en ce.” Bu r n s

, 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 25 -1 2 6 (3 ) (ci t at i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). On t h e

o t h er h an d

, t h e d et erm i n at io n o f fal s i ty co u l d b e vi ewed as p art o f t h e an al y s i s

3reg ard i n g t h e ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f p ri o r al l eg at i o n s t h ro u g h th e ap p l i cat i o n o f “ t h e

fam i l i ar an d u s u al ru l es o f ev i d en ce” i n cl u d i n g a n as s es s m en t of rel ev an cy u n d er

OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 1, as wel l as t h e b al an ci n g t es t req u i red b y OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 . Id

.

at 1 2 4 (2 ). 2 Po s t

- B u r n s

, t h is rem ai n s an o pen q u es t i o n an d o n e t h at we n eed n ot

an s wer h ere.

W h i l e I ap p r e c i a te (an d s h are) t h e d i s s en t ’ s ap p aren t co n cern wi th

“ ju dg e-m ad e” l aw, t h e di s s en t ’ s ap p ro ach ri s k s co m m it t in g t h e s am e i l l i t rep ro ach es

.

As an i n t erm ed i at e ap p el l at e co u rt

, we are l i m i t ed t o ap p l y in g ex i s t i n g l aw. W e are

n o t au th o ri zed t o ap pl y t he l aw as an y o n e t h i n k s i t s h ou l d b e, n o r as an y o n e m ay

b el i ev e th e Su p rem e Co u rt i n th e fu t u re m ay d ecl are i t t o b e. Perh ap s t h e Su p rem e

Co u rt i n Bu r n s i n t en d ed t o ov erru l e th e reas o n ab le p ro b ab i l i t y o f fal s i t y t es t s et fo rt h

i n S mi t h an d p erh ap s it ex p l i ci t l y wi l l d o so i n t h e fu t u re. Bu t, i t d i d n o t say s o in

Bu r ns an d we are l i m i ted t o wh at i t s ai d

. In m y v i ew, t h e di s s en t t ak es a l eap we are

n o t p o si t i o ned t o t ak e i n g raft in g i t s as s u m pt i o n i n t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s ru l i n g. 3

2 In ei th er s cen ari o

, t h e t ri al co u rt is req u i red t o m ak e a det erm i n at i o n o f

wh et h er a reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y ex i s t s t hat t h e p ri o r al l eg at i o n s w ere, i n fact

, fal s e,

b efo re d et erm i n in g w h et h er t he ev i d en ce i s ad m i s s i b l e bas ed o n t h e ap p li cat i o n o f t h e

OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 b al an ci n g t es t

.

3 Th e d i s s en t ch aract eri zes t h e Bu r n s deci s i o n as o v erru li n g o r di s ap p ro v i n g o f

s ev eral o f o u r d eci s i o n s fo r t h e s i m p le reas o n t h at t h es e cas es ap p l i ed t h e reas o n ab l e

4p ro b ab i l i t y o f fal si t y t es t

. H o wev er, a p l ai n read i n g o f t h es e cas es s ho ws t h at t h e

Su p rem e Co urt o v erru l ed o r d is ap p ro v ed o f t h es e h o l d i n g s “ t o t h e ex t en t t h at t h ey

ci t e or rel y o n t h e co n s t i t u t i on al h o l di n g i n S mi t h .” Bu r n s

, 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 24 (2 ) & n

. 3.

As s t at ed ab o v e, Bu r ns d es cri bed t h e co n s t i t u t io n al ho l d i ng i n S mi th as “ a p er s e ru l e

o f ad m i s s i b il i t y fo r ev i d en c e o f p ri o r fal s e al l eg at i o ns wh ere fal s i t y h as b een

es t ab l i s h ed

, n o t wi t h s t an d in g ot h er ru l es o f ev i d en ce.” Id

. at 1 2 1 (2 ). See, e.g

., Ben t o n

v. St a t e

, 2 6 5 G a. 6 4 8

, 6 4 9 -6 5 0 (5 ) (4 6 1 SE2 d 2 0 2 ) (1 9 9 5 ) (t ri al co u rt erred i n ru l i n g

fal s e-al l eg at i on ev i d en ce i n ad m i s s i b l e wh ere d efen d an t h ad m ad e an o ffer o f p ro o f

t h at es t ab l i s h e d a reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y o f fal s i t y ; “ [s ] in ce t h e t h res h o ld

d et erm i n at i o n was s at i s fi ed u n der S mi t h

, . . . i t wa s er r or t o wi t h ho l d s u ch ev i d en ce

fro m t h e ju ry ”) (em

ph as i s s u pp l i ed ); Tys o n v. S t a t e

, 2 3 2 G a. Ap p

. 7 32

, 7 3 3 -7 3 4 (2 )

(5 0 3 SE2 d 64 0 ) (1 9 9 8 ) (wh ere v i ct i m ad m i tt ed t o m ak i ng u p o r ex a g g e rat i n g

al l eg at i o n s o f ab u s e, “ [w] e a g r e e [ d ] wi t h defen d an t t h at ev i d en ce co n cern i n g t h es e

fal s e al l eg at io ns o f m o l es t at io n s h o u ld h a ve b een a d

mi t t ed ”) (em

ph as i s s u p p l i ed ).

5

# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A1 1 1 0

. VALLEJ O v . THE STATE.

P I P K I N , J u d g e, co n cu rri n g i n p art an d co n cu rri n g s p eci al l y i n p art

.

I fu l l y co n cu r wi t h Di vi s i o n s 3 an d 4 o f t h e m ajo ri t y o p i n i o n

, b u t I co n cu r

s p eci al l y wi t h res pect t o Di v is i o n s 1 an d 2 b ecau s e I co n cl u d e t h at an y p o ss i b l e erro r

rel at ed t o th e tri al co u rt ’ s ex cl u s i o n o f t h e v i ct im ’ s al l eg ed p ri o r fal s e o ut cry was

h arm l es s

.

W h at Val l ejo d i d to t h e v i ct i m

– co u n tl es s t i m es an d o v er t h e co u rs e o f y ears

– was h o rri fi c. W h il e t h e v i ct i m wa s a m i n or at t he t i m e of t h e ab us e, s h e was 2 0

y ears o l d at th e t i m e o f t r i a l

, a n d s h e reco un t ed i n ex t en s i v e an d grap h i c d et ai l t h e

n earl y i n n u m erab le i n s t an ces o f s ex u al ab u s e in t h i s cas e. Fo r ex am p l e, t h e v i ct i m

t es t i fi ed Val l ejo wo u l d in si s t o n an al s ex wh en s he w a s m e n st ru at in g

. Sh e t es t i fi edt h at Val l ejo wo u l d “ p rep are” her fo r an al s ex an d ex p l ai n ed t h at h e wo u l d “ l i ck h i s

h an d an d t hen h e wo u l d t ak e h i s s p i t t h at h e h ad li ck ed o ff o f h is h an d an d h e wo u ld

ru b i t o n h i s p en i s an d h e wo u ld al s o ru b i t o n [h er] b u t t

. ” Th e v i ct i m t es t i fi ed t h at s h e

as k ed Val l ejo t o s t o p becau s e o f t h e p ai n, b u t t h at he co n t i n u ed an d t h at h e wo u ld

ejacu l at e i n h er an u s

.

Th e t ru t h can be fo u n d i n t h e t es t i m o ny of o n e, an d t o co u n ter t h i s co m p el l i n g

t es t i m o ny

, Val l ejo s o u gh t t o t el l t h e ju ry t h at t h e v ict i m

– w h en s h e was on l y s i x y ears

o l d

– h ad o n ce accu s ed h er fat h er o f s ex u al a b u s e

, b u t t h at h er fat h er d en i ed t h e

al l eg at i o n a n d t h e i n ci d en t was n o t p ro s ecu t ed

. Aft er a l en g t h y an d ap p ro p ri at e

h eari n g

, th e t ri al co u rt ex cl u d ed th e ev id en c e f r o m t ri al

, co n cl ud i n g t h at t h ere was

i n s u ffi ci en t ev i den ce o f fal s i ty

. Th e m ajo ri ty o p i n io n

, s p eci al co n cu rren ce, an d

d i s s en t ex p en d g reat en erg y an d i n k g rap p l i n g wi t h t h e l eg a l s o u n d n es s o f t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s deci s i o n an d t h e ap p l i cat i o n of t he recen t d eci s i o n S ta t e v. Bu r n s

, 30 6 Ga. 1 1 7

(8 2 9 SE2 d 3 67 ) (2 0 19 ). To b e su re, t h e u l t im at e i m p o rt o f Bu r n s an d t he s t an d ard by

wh i ch a t ri al co u rt ev al u at es t h e ad m i ss i b il it y o f an al l eg ed p ri or o u t cry are cert ai n l y

u n cl ear, b u t wh at i s cl ea r i s t h a t t h e an s w ers to th o s e q u es t io n s d o n ot m at t er h ere.

In s t ead

, we s h o u l d u s e t h e ap p ro p ri at e l eg al l en s an d reas o n ab l e i n feren ces reg ard i n g

h u m an b eh av i o r to reach th e i n es cap ab l e co n cl u s i o n t h at t h e ev i d en ce ab o u t wh i ch

2Val l ejo co m p l a i n s i s i n co ns eq u en t i al i n t h i s cas e an d i s t herefo re co n t ro l l ed b y t h e

t o u ch s t o n e o f ap p el l at e rev i ew: wh ere th ere i s n o h arm

, t h ere i s n o rev ers ib l e erro r. 1

Here, t h e ju ry h eard t es t i m o n y t h at Val lejo was s een cu dd l i n g t h e v i ct i m o n

m u lt i p l e o ccas io n s

, t h at he was s een h o l d i ng h er h an d o n an o t h er o ccas i o n

, an d t h at

h e p u rch as ed l i n g eri e fo r t h e v i ct i m

. Th e St at e al s o ad d u ced a “ s e l f i e ” i n wh i ch

Val l ejo an d t h e v i ct i m a re d es cri b ed as cu d d l i n g

. Bu t t h e ev i d en ce d o es n o t s t o p

t h ere; if a p i ct u re i s wo rt h a t h o u s an d wo rd s

, th en fo ren si c ev i d en ce s p eak s v o l u m es

.

Bas ed o n t h e v i c t i m ’ s s tat em en t t o p o li ce, l aw en fo rcem en t co l l ect ed a d i s card ed

t o wel fro m t h e vi ct i m ’ s b at h ro o m 2

– wh i ch s h e d i d n o t s h ar e w i t h an y on e

– t h at

1 Th e t ri al co u rt co n cl u d ed

– al b ei t wi t h an arg u ab ly o u t d at ed s t an d ard

– t h at

Val l ejo had fai l ed t o p res en t ev i d en ce es t ab l is h i n g wi t h an y l ev el o f cert ai n t y t h at t h e

p ri o r al l eg at i o n was

, i n fact

, fal s e. Th e t ri al co u rt was au t ho ri zed t o co n cl ud e t h at t h e

ev i d en ce p res en ted b y Val l ejo es t ab l i s h es no t hi n g m o re t h an a m ere p o s s ib i l i t y t h at

t h e p ri o r al l eg at i o n w as fal s e. In d eed

, n o t wi t h st an d in g t h e fat h er’ s d en i al an d t h e l ack

o f p ro s ecu t i o n

, t here was al s o am p l e an d u n eq u i v ocal t es t i m o n y at t h e p ret r ial h eari n g

t h at law en fo rcem en t b el i ev ed t he v i ct i m an d d id n o t fi n d h er un t r u t h f u l

. Th u s

, wh at ev er n o m en cl at u re t h e tri al co u rt m ay h av e u s ed i n reach i n g i t s ru l i n g, it i s cl ear

t h at t h e t ri al co u rt di d n o t b el i ev e t hat Val l ejo h ad es t ab l i s hed fal si t y

. W i t h o ut fal s i t y

,

t h e p ri o r o u tcry

– wh i ch o ccu rred 1 4 y ears p ri o r t o t ri al

– i s s im p l y i r r e l e van t an d

i n ad m is s i b le as i s fo rg ed by t h e g u i d an ce o f OCGA § § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 an d 41 2 . Th e t ri al

co u rt ’ s ru l i n g i s en t i t l ed t o s ub s tan t i al d eferen ce. See Pa tt er so n v. S t a t e

, 3 5 0 Ga. Ap p.

5 4 0 , 5 4 4 (2 ) (8 2 9 SE2 d 7 96 ) (2 0 1 9 ).

2 Th e ju ry learn ed t h a t t h e vari o u s fam i l y m em b ers al l h ad d i fferen t co l o red

t o wel s an d t h at t h ere was n o reas o n wh y a wh i t e to wel

– w h i ch wo ul d h av e been u s ed

3Val l ejo w as al l eg ed t o h av e u s ed t o cl ean hi m s el f aft er an i n s t an ce o f s ex u al co n t act

. 3

Th e ju ry l earn ed t h at s p erm an d s em i n al fl u id were fo u n d on th e t o w el an d t h at DNA

reco v ered fro m

t h e t o wel m at ch ed Val l ejo an d was a p art i al m at ch fo r t he v i ct i m

.

In s h ort

, t h e ev i den ce ag ai n s t V al l ejo was n o t m erel y su f f i ci en t

, i t was

co m p el l i n g

, an d i t was s ig n i fi can t ; V a l l ejo rep eat ed l y ex p l o it ed an d v i o l at ed t h e

v i ct i m

. W h i l e Val l ejo arg u es t h at t h e p ri o r-o u tcry ev i den c e co l o rs t h e v i ct i m ’ s

t es t i m o ny an d rai s es q u es t i o ns ab o u t her tru t hfu l n es s

– wh i ch w o u ld s o l el y b e i n t h e

p ro v in ce o f th e t ri al co u rt o r fact fi nd er

– t h i s arg u m en t i s un co n v i n ci n g

. Al t h o u g h

t h e ju ry wo u l d h av e learn ed t h at t h e v ict i m m ad e a p ri o r o u tcry fo r wh i ch th ere was

n o p ro s ecu t i on

, i t i s reas o n ab l e t o as s u m e t hat t h e ju ry wo u ld li k el y a ls o h av e l earn ed

t h at i nd i v i d u al s i n v o l ved i n th e i n v es t i g at io n fo u n d t he t h en -s i x -y ear-o l d v i ct i m t o b e

cred i b l e.

b y Val l ejo o r t he v i ct i m ’ s m o t h er

– wo ul d h av e b een i n th e v ict i m ’ s b at h ro om

, wh i ch

h el d t h e v i ct i m ’ s t eal -co l o red t o wel s

.

3 Val l ejo arg u es t h at

, “ [e] v en i f t h e t o wel i s v i ewed as ev i den ce o f s ex

, i t co u ld

n o t h av e co n s t i t u t ed [ev id en ce o f] ch i l d m o l es t at i o n b ecau s e [t h e v i ct i m ] was s i x t een

y ears o f ag e at t h e t im e” t h e t o wel was al l eg ed l y u s ed

. Ev en i f t h e t o w el i s no t d i rect

ev i d e n c e o f h i s g ui l t o f t h e ch arg ed o ffen s es

, it cert ai n l y co rro b o rat es t h e v i ct i m ’ s

t es t i m o ny o f o n-g oi n g sex u al co n t act

, p art i cu larl y i n l i g h t o f h i s defen s e t h at h e h ad

n o s ex ual co n t act wi t h t h e v i ct i m

.

4I n t h e en d

, wh i l e St at e v. Bu rn s ev i s cerat ed lo n g -s t an d i n g

– an d wel l

u n d ers t o o d

– p reced en t w i t ho u t p ro v i di n g cl ear g u i d an ce fo r fu t u re cas es i nv o l v i n g

al l eg ed l y fal s e o u t cry ev i d en ce, t h i s i s n o t t h e cas e fo r t h i s Co u rt t o m u l l o v er t h e

l eg al co m p l ex i ti es of t h at d eci s i o n o r t o d el v e i n t o a ju ri s p ru d en t i al q u ag m i re; i n d eed

,

Val l ejo ’ s fo cu s o n t h e u n cert ai n t y wro u g h t b y B ur n s is n o t h i n g m o re th an a d efl ect i o n

fro m th e s u b s t an t i al ev i d en ce o f h i s gu i l t an d an at t em p t to lu r e t h i s Co u rt i n to

wres t l i ng wi th a g reas ed p i g

, wh i ch i s n o t o n l y ex h au s t i n g b u t u np ro d u ct i v e. In m y

m i n d an d ex p eri en ce, ou r d i sag reem en t s i n t hi s cas e are p u rel y acad em ic b ecau s e,

g i v en t h e s t ren g t h o f t h e ev i d en ce o f Val l ejo ’ s g u i l t an d t h e m arg i n al b en efi t o f t h e

a l l e g ed fal s e o u t cry ev id en ce, i t i s h ig h l y p ro b ab l e t h at an y erro r here d i d n o t

co n tri b u t e t o t he v erd i ct

. See W a l ker v. S t a t e

, 3 6 0 Ga. Ap p

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

8 6 8 ) (2 0 2 1 ).

Fo r t h es e reas o n s

, I co n cu r fu l l y wi t h Di v i s io n s 3 a n d 4 b u t co n cu r s p eci al l y

wi t h res p ect t o Di v i s io n s 1 an d 2

.

5

# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A1 1 1 0

. VALLEJ O v . THE STATE.

M C F A D D E N , Pres id i n g J u d g e, d i s s en t in g

.

I res p ect fu l l y d is s en t

. I di s ag ree wi t h Di v is i o n s 1 an d 2, wh i ch co n cern t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s t reat m en t o f V al l ejo ’ s req u es t s t o p res en t ev i d en ce rel at ed to t he v i ct i m ’ s

al l eg at i o n t h at s h e was m o l es t ed b y h er b i ol o gi cal fat h er wh en s h e was fi v e y ears o l d.

Val l ejo h a s a r g u e d fo r t he ad m i s s i o n o f ev i d en ce of t h i s i n ci den t fo r t wo d i fferen t

p u rp os es : t o s ho w t h at b ot h t h e v i ct i m an d h er m ot h er m ad e a p ri or, fal s e al l eg at i o n;

an d

, ev en i f t h e pri o r al l eg at i o n was tru e, t o s h o w t h e v ict i m ’ s “ p rev i o u s k n o wl ed g e

o f sex u al act s an d ab u s e, an d t o s h o w h er co m fo rt l ev el wi t h t h e p ro ces s o f

p ro s ecu ti o n .”Th e t ri al co u rt ru l ed t h e ev i d en ce i nad m i s s i b l e t o s ho w a fal s e al l eg at i o n

b ecau s e Val l ejo d i d n ot m ak e a t h res h o ld s h o wi n g o f a reas o n ab l e p r o b a b i l i t y o f

f a l s i t y. Bu t as d et ai l ed b el ow, o u r Su p rem e Co urt s u bs eq u en t l y reject ed t hi s ex tras t at u to ry t h res ho l d p ro ced u re i n S t a t e v. Bu rn s

, 3 06 Ga. 1 1 7 (8 2 9 SE2 d 36 7 ) (2 0 1 9 ).

Un d er Bu r n s a t ri al co u rt m u s t d et erm i n e t h e ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f fal s e al l eg at i o n

ev i d en ce u n der t h e “ fam il i ar an d u s u al ru l es of ev i den ce,” id

. at 1 24 (2 )

— in

p art i cu l ar OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3

, w h i ch au t h o ri zes ex cl u si on o f rel ev an t ev i d en ce d u e

t o p reju d i ce, co nfu si o n , o r was t e o f t i m e.

So I wo u l d v acat e Val l ejo ’ s co n v i ct i o n an d rem an d t h e cas e fo r t he tri al co u rt

t o deci d e t h e ad m i s s i bi l i t y o f ev i d en ce o f t h i s i n ci d en t fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f s h o wi n g a

fal s e a l l eg at i o n u nd er Ru l e 4 0 3 an d an y ot h er ap pl i cab l e ru l e o f ev i d en ce. Th at i s

wh at we d i d i n an o th er po s t- Bu r n s cas e, Ra y v. St at e

, 3 5 6 Ga. Ap p . 2 66 (8 4 1 SE2 d

4 7 7 ) (2 02 0 ). An d b ecau s e t h e t ri al co urt m us t reco n s i d er th e ad m i s s ib i l i t y o f ev i d en ce

o f t hi s i n ci d en t t o s h o w a f a l s e a l l eg at i o n, I wo u l d al s o d i rect t h e t ri al co u rt to

reco n s i d er i t s ad m i s s i b i l i t y t o s up p o rt i n feren ces d rawn fro m t h e v i ct i m ’ s k n o wl ed g e

ab o ut m o l es t at i o n p ro ceed in gs

.

21

. Ad

mi ss i b i l i t y o f t he f a l s e-a l l eg at i o n evi d

en ce.

Th e t ri al co u rt ex cl u ded t h e fal s e-a l l e g a t i o n ev i d en ce aft er d et erm i ni n g t h at

V a l l ejo h ad no t sh o w n a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i li t y o f t h e al l eg at i o n’ s fal s it y

. Th i s

d et erm i n at i o n fo l l o wed ou r Su p rem e Co urt ’ s d eci s i o n i n S m i t h v. S t a t e

, 2 5 9 Ga. 1 3 5,

1 3 7 -1 3 8 (1 ) (3 7 7 SE2 d 1 5 8 ) (1 9 8 9 ), i n wh i ch t h e Co urt h el d t h at

, “ b e f o r e [ f al s eal l eg at i o n ] ev i d en ce can b e ad m it t ed

, t h e t ri al co u rt m u s t m ak e a t h res h o ld

d et erm i n at i o n ou t s i d e t h e p res en ce o f t h e ju ry t h at a reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i li t y o f fal s i t y

ex i s t s.” Id . at 1 3 7 -1 3 8 (1 ) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Th e S mi t h Co u rt d ev i s ed t h i s ru l e i n res p on s e t o an arg u m en t b y t h e s t at e t h at

fal s e-al l eg at i on ev i d en ce “ rel at e[d ] t o t h e v ict i m ’ s ch aract er, wh i ch [co u l d ] o n l y b e

at t ack ed b y ev i d en ce o f t h e v i ct i m ’s g e n e r a l rep u tat i o n fo r v eraci t y [an d ] t h at an y

s p eci fi c i n s t an ces o f un t ru t h fu l n es s are p ro h ib i t ed .” Smi t h

, 25 9 Ga. at 1 3 7 (1 ).

Co n cern ed t hat ex c l u d i n g fal s e-al l eg at i o n ev i d en ce on th at gro u n d wo u l d co n fl i ct

wi t h “ t h e d efen d an t ’ s ri g h t o f co n fro n t at i o n an d ri gh t t o p res en t a fu l l d efen s e[,] ” i d

.,

t h e S m i t h C o u r t ad o p t ed an ap p ro ach us ed i n o t h er s t at es t h at h ad ad d res s ed s u ch

co n st i t u t io n al co n s id erat i o n s

. See, e. g

., Cl i n eb el l v. Co mmo n wea l t h

, 3 6 8 SE2 d 2 6 3,

2 6 5 -2 6 6 (Va. 1 9 8 8 ) (h o l d i n g t h at

, “ [a] t l eas t i n th e co n t ex t o f pro s ecu t io n s o f s ex u al

o ffe ns es

, ev i d en ti ary co n s t rai n ts m u s t so m et i m es y iel d t o a d efen d an t ’ s ri g h t o f cro s s

3ex am i n at i o n ” an d co n cl ud i n g t h at

, i n s uch cas es

, ev i d en ce o f pri o r fal s e accu s at i on s

m ay b e ad m i t t ed u s i n g t h e t h res h o l d d et erm i nat i o n t h at wo u ld be ad o p t ed b y S mi t h ).

In ad o p t i n g t h at p ro ced u re, t h e S m i t h Co u rt es t ab l i s h ed a ru l e u n d er wh i ch

fal s e-al l eg at i on ev i d en ce — al t h o u g h barred b y o t h er ap p l i cab l e ru l es o f ev id en ce

—

was n ev ert h el es s ad m i ss i b l e t o acco m m od at e a d efen d an t ’ s co n s ti t u t i o n al ri g h t s

, s o

l o n g as t h ere was a reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y o f t h e al l eg at i o n’ s fal s i t y

. S mi t h

, 2 5 9 Ga.

at 1 3 7 (1 ). If t h ere w as a reas o nab l e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e al l eg at io n ’ s fal s it y

, t h en t h e

ev i d en ce w as ad m i s s i bl e p er s e, t o av o i d en cro ach i n g o n t h e d efen d an t ’ s

co n st i t u t io n al ri gh t s . See i d

.

Bu t t h e Ev i d en ce Co de of 2 01 3 ab ro g at ed S mi t h ’ s ju dg e-m ad e ru l e

. Th ere i s

n o s t at u t o ry b as i s i n Geo rg i a fo r t h at p ro ced u re. An d “ th e n ew Ev i d en ce Co d e, wh i ch

t o o k effect o n J an u ary 1

, 2 0 1 3

, p recl u d es co u rt s fro m p ro m u l g at in g o r p erp et u at i n g

ju d g e-m ad e ex cl u s i o n ary ru l es o f ev i d en ce[.] ” S ta t e v. O r r

, 3 0 5 Ga. 7 2 9 (8 2 7 SE2 d

8 9 2 ) (2 0 1 9 ).

In Bu r ns

, a d eci si o n i s s ued sh o rt l y aft er t h e tri al co u rt m ad e t h e ev i d en ti ary

ru l i n g i n t h i s cas e, o u r Su prem e Co u rt reject ed S m i th ’ s j u d ge-m ad e ru l e as “ wro n g l y

d eci d ed

. ” Bu r n s

, 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 23 (2 ). In t h at d eci s io n

, t he Co u rt ch aract eri zed S mi t h ’ s

t h res ho l d p ro ced u re as “ a p er s e ru l e o f ad m is s i b i l i t y fo r ev i d en ce o f fal s e al l eg at i on s

4wh ere fal s i t y h as b een es t ab l i s h ed

, n o twi t h s tan d i ng ot h er ru l es o f ev id en ce,” an d t h e

Co u rt o b s erv ed t h at S

mi t h h ad “ s eem i n g l y r e l i e[d ] o n t h e Si x t h an d Fo u rt een th

A m e n d m en t s ” to creat e t h at ru l e. Id

. at 12 1 (2 ). Th e Bu r n s Co u rt d et erm i n ed t h a t

t h o s e “ co n s t i t u t io nal p ro v i s i o n s d em an d n o s u ch ru l e,” i d

., an d, ap p ly i n g p ri n ci p l es

o f s t are d eci si s

, co n cl u d ed t h at t h i s “ co n s t i t ut i o nal h o l di n g ” i n Smi t h sh o u l d b e

o v erru l ed an d t h at t ri al co u rt s i n st ead s ho u l d d eci d e t h e ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f fal s eal l eg at i o n ev i d en ce b y “ ap p ly i n g t h e fam i l iar an d u s u al ru l es o f ev id en ce, wh i ch t ri al

co u rt s ro u t i n el y

d o ev ery d ay .” Id . at 1 2 4 (2 ).

It i s t ru e, as J u dg e Go b ei l ’ s co ncu rri n g o p i n io n p o i n t s o u t

, t h at Bu rn s d i d n ot

i n v o l v e an i n i t ial d et erm i nat i o n b y a tri al co u rt t h at th e d efen d an t h ad fai l ed t o m eet

t h e b u rd en o f es t ab l i s h i n g a reas o n a b l e p ro bab i l i t y o f fal s i t y

. Bu t t h e Bu r ns Co u rt

o v erru l ed or d i s ap p ro v ed n u m ero u s Geo rg ia ap p el lat e co u rt d eci s i o n s ap p l y i n g

S mi th ’ s t h res h o l d “ reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y o f fal s i t y ” p ro ced u re, s ee Bu r n s

, 3 0 6 Ga.

at 1 2 4 -1 2 5 (2 ) & n

. 3

, an d m an y o f t h o s e o v e r r u l ed o r d i s ap p ro v ed d eci s i o n s d id

i n v o l v e su ch in i t i al tri al co u rt d et erm i nat i o ns

. See, e. g

., Ben t o n v. S t a te

, 2 6 5 Ga. 6 4 8,

6 4 9 -6 5 0 (5 ) (4 61 SE2 d 2 0 2 ) (1 9 9 5 ) (h o l d i n g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred in ru l i n g fal s eal l eg at i o n ev i d en ce was i n ad m i s s i b l e b ecau s e t h e d efen d an t m ad e an o ffer o f p ro o f

t h at es t ab l i s hed a reas o n ab le p ro b ab i li t y of i t s fal s i t y ), o v erru l ed b y Bu r n s

, 3 0 6 Ga.

5at 1 2 4 (2 ) (h o l d in g t h at B en t o n co n t ai n ed a si m i l ar co n s t i t u t i o n al ho l d i n g t o S mi th );

Mo r g a n v. S t a t e

, 3 3 7 Ga. Ap p

. 2 9

, 3 1 (1 ) (7 8 5 SE2 d 6 6 7 ) (2 01 6 ) (h ol d i ng t ri al co u rt

d i d n o t e rr i n ex cl ud in g ev i d en ce ab o u t v i ct i m ’ s p urp o rt ed ly fal se p ri or al l eg at i o n

af t er d et erm i n i n g t hat t h e fact s al l eg ed b y t h e v i ct i m were t ru e), di s ap p ro v ed by

Bu r ns

, 30 6 Ga. at 12 4 (2 ) n

. 3 (s u g g e s t i n g t hat Mo r g an ci ted o r rel i ed o n S

mi t h ’ s

co n st i t u t io n al h o l di n g ) ; T y s o n v. S ta t e

, 2 32 Ga. A p p

. 7 32

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

6 4 0 ) (1 9 9 8 ) (h o ld i n g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n “ ap p aren t l y co ncl u d [i n g ] t h a t

. . .

t h ere w as n o ‘ reas o n ab l e p ro b ab il i t y ’ th at t h e [ pri o r m o les t at io n ] al l eg at i o n s were

fal s e”), o v erru l ed b y Bu r n s

, 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 24 (2 ) (h o l d i n g t h at Tys o n co n t ai n ed a

s i m i l ar co n s t it ut i o n al h o l di ng t o S mi t h ); S t r i ckl an d

v. S ta t e

, 2 0 5 Ga. A p p

. 4 7 3 , 4 7 4

(4 2 2 SE2 d 3 1 2 ) (1 9 9 2 ) (h o l d i ng t h a t t h e t ri al co u rt erred in det erm in i n g th at t h ere

was n o reas o n ab l e pro bab i l i t y t h at p ri o r al leg at i on s o f ch il d m o l es t at i o n were fal s e

an d t h erefo re ex cl u d i n g ev i d en ce o f th e m ), o v erru l ed b y Bu r n s

, 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 2 4 (2 )

(h o l d i n g t h at S t ri ckl a n d

co n t ai n ed a s i m i lar co n s t i t u t i o n al h o l d i n g t o Smi t h ).

On e o f t h e d eci s i o n s t h at Bu rn s ex p res s l y ov erru l ed was th i s co urt ’ s d eci s i o n

i n Ra y v. S t at e

, 3 4 5 G a. Ap p

. 52 2 (8 1 2 SE2 d 9 7) (2 0 1 8), i n wh i ch w e h ad v acat ed an d

r e m a n d ed a t ri al co urt ’ s ru l i n g o n t h e ad m i s s i b il i ty of ev i d en ce o f a p ri o r fal s e

al l eg at i o n m ad e b y th e v i ct im ’ s au n t o n t h e g ro un d t h at t h e t ri al co u rt h ad n o t m ad e

6t h e n eces s ary “ reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y o f fal s i t y ” d et erm i n at i o n . See Bu r ns , 3 0 6 Ga.

at 1 24 (2 ). At t h e t i m e o f t h e Bu r n s d eci s i o n

, o u r d eci si on i n R a y was befo re t h e

Su p rem e Co u rt o n a p et i t i o n fo r wri t o f cert i o rari , an d t h e Su p rem e Co urt i s s u ed an

o rd er v acat i n g o u r d eci s i o n an d rem an d in g Ra y t o t h i s c o u r t fo r reco n s i d erat i o n in

l i gh t o f Bu r n s

. S ta t e v. Ra

y

, 2 0 1 9 Ga. LEXIS 5 7 7 (Cas e No

. S1 8 C1 2 0 1

, d eci ded Au g.

1 9 , 2 0 1 9 ).

W h en we reco n s i d e r e d R a y o n rem an d, we d i d n o t ag ai n h o l d t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt m us t d et erm in e t h e ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e f a l s e -al l eg at io n ev i den ce u s i n g t h e

“ reas o nab l e p ro b ab i li t y o f fal s i t y ” p ro ced u re. W e d e t e r m i ned t hat Bu r n s h ad

ab ro g at ed S

mi t h ’ s p er s e ru le o f ad m i s s i b i l i t y fo r ev i d en ce o f p ri o r fal s e al l eg at i o n s

,

o n wh i c h w e h ad rel i ed i n o u r earl i er ru l i n g. In s t ead we “ ad d res s [ed ] t h e i s s u e

i d en t i fi ed b y o ur Su prem e Co u rt : wh et h er ev i den ce o f t h e d eceas ed au n t’ s p ri o r fal s e

rep o rt s

, p rev i o u sl y d eem ed i n ad m i s s i b l e wi t h o ut a d et erm i n at i o n o f a ‘ reas o n ab l e

p ro b ab i l i t y ’ o f t h ei r fal s i t y

, sh o u l d b e ad m is s i b l e u n d er Ru l e 4 0 3.” Ra y v. S t a t e

, 3 5 6

Ga. Ap p . 2 6 6 , 2 6 8 (8 4 1 SE2 d 4 7 7 ) (2 0 2 0 ).

In ad d res s i ng t h at i s s u e, w e s t a t e d i n Ra y t h at “ i t m ay wel l be t h at t es t i m o ny

s h o wi n g t h at t h e v i ct i m ’ s d eceas ed au n t

, w h o rep o rt ed th e cri m es a t i s s u e

, h ad

p rev i o u s l y m ad e fal s e cl ai m s o f s ex u al ab u s e wo u l d b e rel ev an t to t h e v eraci t y o f t h e

7al l eg at i o n s h ere.” Ra y

, 3 5 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 26 8 -2 6 9 (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i on o m i t t ed ).

B u t we hel d t hat t h e u lt i m at e q u es t i o n o f ad m i s s i b i l it y u n d er Ru l e 4 0 3 was fo r t h e

t r i a l co u rt i n t h e fi rs t i n s t an ce. Id

. at 26 9 -2 70

. So w e vacat ed t h e d efen d an t ’s

co n vi ct i o n i n Ra

y an d rem an d ed t h e cas e wi th d i rect i on t hat t h e t ri al co u rt d et erm i n e

w h e t h e r

, u n der Ru l e 40 3

, t h e p ro b at i v e v al u e o f ev i den ce as t o th e

v i ct i m ’ s au n t ’ s p ri o r fal s e accu s at i on i s su b st an t i al l y o u t wei g hed b y i t s

p reju d i ci al effect

. If t h e t ri al co u rt co n cl u des t h a t OC GA § 2 4-4 -4 0 3

wo u ld h av e b arred t hi s ju ry fro m l earn in g ab o u t t h e v ict i m ’ s au n t ’ s fal s e

s t at em en t

, . . . it sh o u ld en t er an o rd er m ak i n g fi n d i ng s t o th at effect an d

rei n s t at i n g Ray ’ s co n v i ct i o n

. If, o n t he o t h er h an d , t h e t ri al co u rt fi n d s

. . . t h at t he ev id en ce o f t h e v i ct im ’ s au n t ’ s f al se s t at em en t w as

i m p ro p erl y ex cl u d ed

, it sh o u l d co n s i d er wh et h er Ray was p reju d i ced b y

[t hi s ] erro r[ ] an d o rd er fu rt h er p ro ceed i n g s acco rd i n g l y

.

Ra y

, 3 5 6 Ga. Ap p . at 2 7 0 (ci tat i o n s o m i t t ed ).

W e s h o u l d do t h e s am e t h i n g i n t h i s cas e

. Th e ev i d en ce t h at b o th t h e v i ct i m an d

h er m ot h er h ad m ad e p ri o r fal s e al l eg at i o n s ab o u t t h e v ict i m ’ s m o les t at io n i s cl earl y

rel ev an t t o t h e v eraci t y o f t he al l eg at i o n s i n t h i s cas e. Se e OC GA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 1

. Th e

t ri al co urt

, h o wev er, d i d no t ap p l y Ru l e 4 0 3 ’ s bal an ci n g t es t

, o r an y o t h er ru l e o f

ev i d en ce, t o d et erm i n e wh et h er t h at rel ev an t ev i d en ce was ad m i ss i b l e.

8In h i s s p eci al co n cu rren ce, J u d ge Pi p k i n arg u es t h at th i s erro r was harm l es s

,

p o i n t i n g i n l arg e part t o t h e co m p el l in g nat u re o f th e v i ct i m ’ s o u t cry

, s een i n h er t ri al

t es t i m o ny an d fo ren si c i n t e r v iew. Bu t th e ju ry co u l d co n cl ud e fro m th e ex cl u d ed

ev i d en ce t h at t h e v i ct i m an d h er m o t h er were n o t cred i bl e wi t n es s es

. If t he ju ry d id

n o t b el i ev e t h e v i ct i m

, t h en h er o u t cry w ou l d n o t be co m p el l i n g

. An d ap art fro m h er

o u t cry

, t h e ev i d en ce o f Val l e j o ’s g u i l t was n o t ov erwh el m i n g

. So t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

erro r i n ex cl u d i n g t h e p ri o r fal s e al l eg at io n s ev i den ce w i t ho u t ap p l y i n g Ru l e 4 0 3 ’ s

b al an ci n g t es t was n o t h arm l es s

.

Co n trary t o t h e m ajo ri t y, t h e Ru l e 4 0 3 p ro ced ure d o es n ot “ n eces s ari l y

req u i re[] an i n it i al d et er m i n a t i o n o f wh et h er t h e p ri o r al l eg at i o ns were, i n fact

fal s e[.] ” On t h e co nt rary , o u r Su p rem e Co u rt h as

rep eat ed l y ex p l ai n ed [t h at ] Ru l e 4 03 i s an ex t rao rd i n ary rem ed y

, wh ich

s h o u l d b e u sed o nl y s p ari n g l y

, an d t h e bal an ce s ho u l d b e s t ru ck i n fav o r

o f ad m i s s ib i l i t y

. Th u s

, i n rev i ewi ng i s s u es u n d er Ru l e 4 0 3

, we l o ok at

t h e ev id en ce i n a l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o i t s ad m i s s io n , m ax i m i zi n g i t s

p ro b at iv e v al u e an d m in i m i zi n g i t s u n d ue p reju d i ci al i m p act

.

Ca r s to n v. S ta t e

, 3 1 0 Ga. 7 9 7, 8 0 3 (3 ) (b ) (8 54 SE2 d 6 8 4 ) (2 0 2 1 ) (ci tat i o n o m i t t ed ).

Cert ai n l y

, in as s es s in g t he p ro b at i v e v al u e o f fal s e-al l eg at i on ev i d en ce as p art o f t h e

Ru l e 4 03 b al an ci n g t es t

, a t ri al co u rt m ay co n s i d er t h e “ s t ren g t h o f i t s l o g i cal

9co n nect io n t o t h e fact fo r w h ich i t i s o ffered .” Ol d s v. St a t e

, 2 9 9 Ga. 65

, 7 5 (2 ) (7 8 6

S E 2 d 6 3 3 ) (2 0 1 6). Bu t t h at i s n o t t h e s am e t h i n g as co n d u ct i n g a t h res h o l d fact u a l

d et erm i n at i o n of t h e reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i li t y t h at t h e al l eg at io n was fal s e. Th i s can b e

s een i n t h e m ajo ri t y ’ s rev i ew of t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s reas o n ab le p ro b ab i l it y d et erm i n at i o n,

wh i ch res t s h eav i l y

o n t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s fact u al fi n d i n g. Smi t h ’ s t h res h o l d p ro ced u re

s i m p l y can n o t b e fi t i n t o t h e Ru l e 4 0 3 an al y si s n o w req u ired b y Bu r ns

, an d s o to

ap p ly t h e law es t ab l i s h ed b y Bu r n s we m us t no l o n g er em

p lo y S m i t h ’ s t h res h o ld

reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y

d et erm i n at i o n

.

In reach i n g t h i s co n cl us i o n

, I n o t e t h at t h e m ajo ri t y o p i n i o n ci t es t wo cas es

ap p ly i n g S

mi t h ’ s t h r e s h o l d pro ced u re t h at p red at e B ur n s b ut were n o t ex p res s l y

o v erru l ed o r di s ap p ro v ed b y t h at d eci s i o n

. See W i ll i a ms v. S t a t e

, 2 6 6 Ga. Ap p

. 5 7 8,

5 8 0 -5 8 1 (1 ) (5 9 7 SE2 d 6 2 1 ) (2 0 0 4 ); Ch eek v

. S t a t e

, 2 6 5 Ga. Ap p

. 1 5

, 17 (2 ) (5 9 3

SE2 d 5 5) (2 00 3 ). In ad d i t i o n

, a cas e d eci d ed sh o rt l y aft er Bu r ns al s o h as ap p l i ed t h e

t h res ho l d p ro ced u re, ap p aren t l y co n cl u di n g, as th e m ajo ri t y co n cl u d es t o d ay

, t h at t h e

t h res ho l d p ro ced u re w as p art o f t h e “ ev id en t i ary h o l d i ng ” i n S

mi t h t hat w as u p h el d

i n B u r n s

, rat h er t han p art o f t h e “ co n s t i t u t io n al h ol d in g ” i n S mi t h t h at Bu r n s

o v erru l ed

. See St a t e v. Pa r ks

, 3 5 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 99

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

Bu t wh at Bu r ns d es cri b es as t h e “ ev i d en t iary ho l d i n g ”

— an d w h at Bu r n s u p h o l d s

—

10i s s i m

p l y S mi t h ’ s co n cl u s i o n t h at ev i den ce o f a fal se al l eg at i o n i s n o t b arred b y t h e

rap e s h i el d s t at u t e. S ee B u r n s

, 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 2 0 -1 2 1 (2 ). Th e Bu r n s Co u rt d i s cu s s es

S mi th ’ s t h res ho ld p ro ced u re i n co n n ect io n wi t h t h at d eci s io n’ s “ co n s t i t u t i o n al

h o l d i n g ,” n o t i t s “ ev i den t i ary h o l d i n g

. ” See i d

. at 1 2 1 (2 ). Th at t h res h o l d p ro ced u re

w a s i n t eg ral t o t h e co n st i t ut io n al ho l d i n g : i t was a ju di ci al l y creat ed co m p ro m i s e

b et ween ev i d en t i ary co n s t rai n t s d e s i g n ed t o p ro t ect th e v ict i m an d t h e d efen d an t ’ s

co n st i t u t io n al “ ri gh t o f co n fro n t at i on an d ri g h t t o p res en t a fu l l d efen s e.” S mi t h

, 2 5 9

Ga. at 1 3 7 (1 ). Acco rd Bu r n s

, 3 0 6 Ga. at 1 1 9 (1 ). So t h e co n cl u s i o n i n Pa r ks t h at t h e

t h res ho l d p ro ced u re s u rv iv ed Bu rn s i s in co r r e c t

. Th at cas e, al o n g wi t h W i l l i a ms

,

s u p ra, an d Ch eek

, s up ra, are i n co n s i s t en t wi t h ou r Su prem e Co u rt ’ s o pi n i o n i n Bu r n s

,

an d t h ey s h o u ld b e o v erru l ed

.

2

. Ad mi ss i b i l i t y t o s h o w t h e vi ct i m ’s kn o wl ed g e.

Th e t ri al co u rt ru l ed s ep arat el y o n Val l ejo ’ s arg u m en t t hat t h e ev i d en ce o f t h e

v i ct i m ’ s pri o r al l eg at i o n s h o u ld b e ad m it t ed t o s h o w h er k n owl ed g e o f m o l es t at i o n

cl ai m s an d t h e p ro ces s o f p ro s ecu t i ng s uch cl ai m s

. At t h e t i m e o f t hat ru l i n g

, Val l ejo

h ad as s ert ed t h at t h e v i ct i m ’ s p ri o r al l eg at i on p ro bab l y was t ru e. (Hi s at t o rn ey s l at er

o b t ai n ed ev i d en ce t o t h e c o n t rary

. ) Th e t ri al co u rt hel d t hat Geo rg i a’ s rap e s h i el d

11s t at u te, OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 12

, d i d n o t b ar t h e ev i d en ce b ut n ev ert h el es s ru l e d t h e

ev i d en ce i n ad m is s i b l e fo r t he p u rp o s es p ro p o s ed b y Val l ejo

.

Th e t ri al co u rt s h o ul d al s o reco n s i der t hi s ru l i n g o n rem an d

.

Th e tri al co u rt co rrect l y hel d t h at

, ev en i f t h e p ri o r al l eg at i o n was tru e, t h e rap e

s h i el d s t at u t e do es n ot ap p l y

. By i t s t erm s

, th at st at u t e on l y co n cern s ev i d en ce o f t h e

v i ct i m ’ s “ p as t s e x u al b eh av i o r.” OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 1 2 (a). Ev i den ce th at an ad u l t

p erp et rat ed act s o f s ex u al ab u se u p o n a fi v e-y ear-o l d ch i l d i s n o t ev i den ce t h at t h e

ch i l d en g ag ed i n “ s ex ual b eh av i o r.” See Lema cks v. St a te

, 20 7 G a. Ap p

. 1 6 0

, 1 6 1

(4 2 7 SE2 d 5 3 6 ) (1 9 9 3 ) (“ Co n t r a r y t o t h e [s ] t at e’ s arg um en t

, ‘ beh av i or’ i s n ot

s y n o n y m o u s wi th ‘ ex p eri en ce.’ ”); Ra i n es v. S t a t e

, 1 9 1 Ga. Ap p

. 7 4 3

, 74 5 (2 ) ( 3 8 2

SE2 d 7 38 ) (1 9 8 9 ) (“ Ob v i o u s l y

, a p ri o r rap e co m m i t t ed ag ai n s t t h e v ict i m has n o t h i n g

wh at s o ev er t o d o wi t h h er pas t s e x u a l b e h av i o r.”) (em p h as i s i n o ri g in al ). See al s o

Ber r y v. S mi t h

, 2 1 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 8 9 (1 ) (4 37 SE2 d 6 3 0 ) (1 9 9 3) (cl ari fy i n g t h at t h e ru l e

ex p res s e d i n Ra i n es

, s u p ra, p ert ai n s t o fo rci b l e rap e), o v erru l ed i n p art o n o t h er

g ro u nd by Bu r n s

, 3 0 6 G a

. a t 1 2 4 (2 ). 4 Bu t see S t even s v. S t a t e

, 3 56 Ga. Ap p

. 8 4 7,

4 W e m ay c o n s i d er t h es e cas es ev en t h ou g h t hey w ere deci d ed u n der a p ri o r

v ers i on o f t h e rap e s h i el d s t at u t e, b ecau se t h e p ro v is i on ap p l y i n g t h e s t a t u t e t o

ev i d en ce o f “ pas t s ex u al b eh av i o r” was n o t ch an ged i n t h e en act m en t o f o u r n ew

Ev i d en ce Co d e in 20 1 3 an d Geo rg i a’ s rap e s h i el d s t at u t e d i ffers i n s u b s t an ce fro m i t s

fed eral co u n t erp art

. See g en eral l y St a t e v. Al ma nz a

, 3 04 Ga. 5 5 3

, 5 5 7 (2 ) (8 2 0 SE2 d

128 5 2 -8 5 3 (3 ) (8 4 7 SE2 d 6 4 9 ) (2 0 2 0 ) (affi rm in g u n d er rap e sh i el d s t at u t e t ri al co urt ’ s

ru l i n g th at defen s e co u l d n o t cro s s -ex am i n e v i ct i m ab o u t h er al l eg at i o n s t h at s h e h ad

b een m o l es t ed by o t h er p eo p l e, wi t h o ut an al y s i s of wh et h er p as t m o l es t at i o n

co n st i t u t ed “ s ex u al b eh av io r” o n p art o f v i ct i m ).

Bu t t he t ri al co u rt erro n eo u s l y rel i ed on c a s e law pred at i ng th e cu rren t

Ev i d en ce Co de, i n part i cu l ar o u r o pi n i o n in B l a ckwel l v. S t a t e

, 2 2 9 G a. Ap p

. 4 5 2,

4 5 3 -4 5 4 (2 ) (4 9 4 SE2 d 2 6 9 ) (1 9 9 7). In Bl a ckwel l we rei terat ed a “ l o n g -s t an d i n g ru l e

b arri ng i n t ro d uct i o n o f ev id en ce o f p ri o r u n rel at ed m o l es t at i o n .” Id . Th at ru l e i s n o

l o n g er s tan d i ng

. Ru l es g o v ern in g rel ev an ce u n der o u r fo rm er Ev i d en ce Co d e were

d i s p l aced b y o ur n ew E v i d en ce Co d e. See S ta t e v. Al ma n z a

, 3 0 4 Ga. 5 5 3

, 5 5 6 -5 5 7 (2 )

(8 2 0 SE2 d 1 ) (2 0 1 8 ), ov erru led i n p art o n o th er g ro u n d s by S mi t h v. S ta t e

, 3 0 9 Ga.

2 4 0 , 2 4 7 -2 4 8 (2 ) (b ) (8 4 5 SE2 d 5 9 8 ) (2 0 2 0 ).

Becau s e t h e rap e s hi el d s t at u t e d o es no t p recl u d e t h e ev i d en ce an d t h e ru l es

g o v e r n i n g rel ev an ce u n d er o u r fo rm er Ev i d en ce Co d e h av e b een s u p pl an t ed

, t h e

1 ) (2 0 1 8) (“ If t h ere i s n o m at eri al l y i den t i cal Fed eral R u l e o f Ev i d en ce an d a

p ro v is i o n o f th e o l d Ev i d en ce Co d e was ret a i n e d i n t h e [2 0 1 3 ] Co d e, o ur cas e l aw

i n t erp ret i n g t h at fo rm er p ro v is i o n ap p l i es

. ” )

, o verru led i n p art o n o t h er g ro u n d s by

S mi th v. S t a t e , 3 0 9 Ga. 2 4 0

, 2 4 7 -2 4 8 (2 ) (b ) (8 4 5 SE2 d 5 9 8 ) (2 0 2 0 ).

13g en eral ru l es s et fo rt h i n OCGA § 2 4-4 -4 0 1 t h ro ug h 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 g o v ern i t s

ad m i s s i b i l i t y

.

Un d er OCGA § 24 -4 -4 0 1

, “ ‘ rel ev an t ev i d en ce’ m ean s ev i d en ce h av i n g an y

t en d en cy t o m ak e t h e ex i s ten ce o f an y fact t h at is o f co n s eq u en ce t o t he 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 p ro b ab l e t h an i t wo u l d b e wi t h o u t th e ev i d en ce.”

Th i s b ro ad d efi n i t i o n o f rel ev an ce en co m p as s es t h e i n feren ces t h a t V a l l ejo arg u es

s h o u ld b e d rawn fro m t h e ev i d en ce o f t h e v i ct i m ’ s p as t m o l es t at i o n al l eg at i o n

.

Th e cas e ci ted b y t h e m ajo ri t y fo r t h e p ro p o s i t i o n t h a t t he v i ct i m ’ s p ri o r

ex p eri en ce wi t h a m o l es t at i on i n v es t i g at i o n was n o t rel ev an t

, Jo nes v. S ta t e

, 3 0 5 Ga.

7 5 0 ( 8 2 7 SE2 d 8 7 9 ) (2 0 1 9 ), i s i n ap p o s i t e; in t h at cas e, t h e Co u rt h el d t h a t a

p h o t o g rap h o f t wo p ers o n s s t an d i n g o n a b each

, wh i ch “ es tab l i s h ed

, at m o s t, t h at [t h e

t wo ] w e r e acq uai n t ed

, a fact t hat was n o t in d i s pu t e[,

. . . ] d i d no t hel p d et erm i n e

w h e t h er [o n e o f th e pers o n s i n t h e p h o to g rap h] or [t h e d efen d an t ] co m m i t t ed t h e

m u rd ers wi t h [t h e o th er p ers o n i n t he ph o t og rap h ]

. ” Id

. at 75 3 (2 ) (c). An d

, as n o t ed

ab o ve, cas es res t ri ct i n g t he rel ev an ce o f t h i s t y p e of ev id en ce t h at w ere d eci d ed u n d er

o u r fo rm er Ev i d en ce Co d e, s uch as Bl a ckwel l v. S t a t e

, s u pra, an d Ch a s t a i n v. S t a t e

,

1 8 0 Ga. Ap p . 3 1 2 (2 ) (3 4 9 SE2 d 6 ) (1 9 8 6 ), are n o l o n g er g oo d l aw.

14Un d er O CGA § 2 4-4 -4 0 2, ab s en t a co n s t it u t i on al or s t at u t o ry ex cep t i o n

, “ [a] l l

rel ev an t ev i d en ce s hal l b e ad m i s s i b l e[.] ”

An d u n der OCGA § 42 -4 -4 0 3

, “ [r] el ev an t ev i den ce m ay b e ex c l u d e d i f i t s

p ro b at i v e v al u e i s s u bs t an t i 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,

co n fu s i o n o f t h e i s s u es , o r m i s l ead i n g t h e ju ry o r b y co n s i d erat i o n s o f u n d u e d el ay

,

was te o f t i m e, o r n eed l es s p res en t at i o n o f cu m u l at i v e ev i d en ce.”

I reco gn i ze t hat t he t ri al co u rt d i d perfo rm a Ru le 4 0 3 an al y s i s o f Val l ejo ’ s

ar g u m e n t t h at ev i d en ce o f t h e v i ct i m ’ s p ri o r al l eg at i o n s h o u l d b e ad m i t t ed t o s h o w

h er kn o wl ed g e o f m ol es t at i o n cl ai m s an d t h e p ro ces s o f p ro s ecu t i ng s u ch cl ai m s

. Bu t

h e di d s o i n co nju nct i o n w i t h h i s ap p li cat i o n o f t h e f o rm erl y l o n g -s t an di n g ru l e s et

o u t i n Bl a ckwel l

.

As n o t ed ab o ve, t h ere i s n o ro o m i n Ru le 40 3 fo r ex cl u s i on o f rel ev an t

ev i d en ce o n t h e bas is t hat t h e t ri al co u rt fi n d s t h e ev i d en ce, o r th e i n feren ces a p art y

wo u l d d raw fro m i t

, t o b e u n p ers u as i v e. See Ca rs t o n v. S t a te

, 3 10 Ga. at 8 0 3 (3 ) (b ).

So I q u es t io n wh et h er it was wi t h i n t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d i s cret i on t o ru l e t h e p ri o r

al l eg at i o n ev i d en ce i n ad m i s s ib l e i n t hi s cas e.

N ev ert h el es s

, as d i s cu s s ed ab o v e, t o t h e ex t en t t h e ev i d en ce is o f a f al s e

al l eg at i o n t h e t ri al co u rt h a s n o t ye t en g ag ed i n t he n eces s ary an al y s i s o f t h at

15ev i d en ce’ s ad m i s s ib i l i t y u n d er Ru l e 4 03

. See Ra y

, 3 5 6 Ga. Ap p. at 2 6 9 (2 )

(ap p l i cat i o n o f Ru l e 4 0 3 t o d et erm i ne ad m i s s i bi l i t y o f rel ev an t ev i d en ce i s a m at t er

fo r t he t ri al co urt i n th e fi rs t i n s t an ce). An d h i s d et erm i n at i o n ab o u t wh et h er ev i d en ce

o f t h i s i n ci d en t i s ad m i ss i b l e to s h o w a fal s e al l eg at i o n m ay h av e an i m p act u p o n t h e

rel at ed q u es t i o n of wh et her ev i d en ce o f t h at i n ci d en t i s a d m i s s i b l e t o s u p p o rt

i n feren ces d rawn fro m

t h e v i ct i m ’ s k n o wl ed g e ab ou t m o l es t at i o n p ro ceed i n g s

.

So o n rem an d

, t h e t ri al co u rt s h o u l d b e in s t ru ct ed t o reco n s i d er t h e

ad m i s s i b i l i t y o f ev i den ce o f t h at i n ci d en t fo r t h e p u rp o s e of sh o wi n g s u ch k no wl ed ge.

16