FI RST DI VI SI ON
BA RNES, P. J.

, GOBEI L and M A RKLE, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

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

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

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

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

.

M ay 24, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A0 19 3 . M CM URRIA v . THE STATE.

M A R K LE
, J ud g e.

Fo l l owi n g a ju ry t ri al

, J o h n Earle M cM u rri a was co n v i ct ed o f ch i l d m o l es t at i o n

(OCGA § 1 6 -6 -4 (a) (1 )). He ap p eal s fro m t h e t ri al c o u r t ’ s d en i al of h is m o t i o n fo r

n ew t ri al

, ch al len g i n g t h e su ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce an d co n t en d i n g t ri al c o u n s el

ren d ered i n effect i v e as si s t an ce b y fai li n g t o ob ject t o im pro p er (a) ch aract er eviden ce,

an d (b ) co m

m u n i cat i on s b et ween t h e b ai li ff an d t he ju ry

. Fi n d i n g n o erro r, we affi rm

.

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

, Ja cks on v. Vi r g i n i a , 44 3 U. S.

3 0 7 (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0) (1 9 7 9 ), t h e reco rd sh o ws t h at

, i n J an u ary 20 1 8

, t h e

t h en -ei g h t -y ear-o l d v i ct im was ri d i n g h er bi k e wi t h t wo ot h er ch i l d ren b eh i n d

M cM u rri a’ s h o m e. M cM u rri a cal l ed h er away fro m t h e o t h er ch i l d ren , u nzi p p ed h i s

p an ts

, an d t o l d h er to lo o k d o w n , ex p o s i n g h i s p en i s t o h er. Th e v i ct i m ret urn ed h o m ean d i m

m ed i at el y t o l d her o l d er b ro t h er wh at h ad hap p en ed

. Th e b ro t her t o l d t h ei r

fat h er, wh o cal l ed l aw en fo rcem en t. A fo ren s i c i n t erv iew was co n d u c t e d

, a n d t h e

v i ct i m ’ s d is c l o s u re was co n s i s t en t wi t h h er p ri o r s t at em en t s

. M cM u rri a was

s u b s eq u en t l y

ch arg ed w it h ch i ld m o l es t at i o n

.

At t ri al

, t h e b ro t h er t es t i fi ed t h at t h e v i ct i m d i s cl o s ed t o h i m t h at M cM urri a h ad

s h o wed hi s “ p et er” t o h er. Th e f o ren s i c i n t erv i ewer al so t es t i fi ed t h at t h e v i ct i m

rep o rt ed M cM u rri a ex p o s ed h i s “ p et er,” wh ich th e vi ct i m d es cri b ed as “ b i g an d

wh i te.” 1 Th e v ict i m

t es t ifi ed at t ri al t h at M cM u rri a h ad u n zi p p ed h i s p an t s an d t o ld

h er to l oo k d o wn , b u t sh e i n si s t ed t h at s h e d id n o t l o ok do wn an d h ad n o t s een h i s

p en is

. T h e St at e p ro ffered

, an d th e t ri al co u rt ad m i t t ed

, M cM u rri a’ s 1 9 9 2 co n v i ct i on s

fo r t h e m o l es t at i o n an d s tat u t o ry rap e of h i s th en -fo u rt een -y ear-o ld s t ep d au g h t er.

M cM u rri a d i d n o t t es t i fy

o r o t h erwi se o ffer ev i d en ce.

Th e ju ry ret u r n e d a g u i l t y v erd i ct

. M cM u rri a fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

,

rai s in g al l t h e i s s u es n o w arg u ed o n ap p eal

. Fo l l o wi n g a h eari n g , t h e t r i a l co u rt

d en ied t h e m o ti o n , an d t h i s ap p eal fo l l owed

.

1 Th e vi deo reco rd i n g o f t h e fo ren s ic i n t erv i ew w as ad m i tt ed an d p u b l i s h ed to

t h e ju ry

.

21

. M cM u rri a fi rs t arg u es th at t h e ev i d en ce was i n s u ffi ci e n t t o s u p p o rt h i s

co n vi ct i o n fo r 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 t es t i fi ed at t ri al t h at s h e d i d n ot

s ee h i s p en i s , an d t h ere was n o ev i den ce o f h i s i n t en t t o aro u s e o r s at i s fy h i s s ex u al

d es i re b y h i s act s . W e are n o t p ers u ad ed

.

On ap pel l at e rev i ew o f a cri m i n al co n v i ct i o n , we vi ew t h e ev i d en ce i n

t h e li g ht m o st fav o rab l e t o t h e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

, an d t h e d e fen d an t n o

l o n g er en jo y s t h e p res u m

p t i o n o f i n n ocen ce. W e do n o t wei g h th e

ev i d en ce o r ju dg e t h e cred i b i l it y of w i t nes s es , b u t d et erm i n e o n l y i f th e

ev i d en ce was s u ffi ci en t fo r a rat i o n al t ri er o f fact t o fi n d t h e d efen d an t

g u i l ty o f t h e o ffen s es ch arg ed b ey o nd a reas o n ab l e d o u bt

.

(Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed .) D a vi s v. S t a t e , 3 5 7 Ga. Ap p. 7 2 0 (1 ) (8 4 8 SE2 d 1 7 3) (2 0 2 0 ).

“ A p ers on co m

m i t s t h e o ffen s e o f ch i l d m o l es t at i o n wh en s u ch pers o n

. . .

[d ] o es an y im

m o ral o r i n d ecen t act t o o r i n t he p res en ce o f o r wi t h an y ch i l d u n d er t h e

ag e o f 1 6 y ear s w i t h t h e in t en t t o aro u s e o r sat i sfy th e s ex u al d es i res o f ei t h er t h e

ch i l d o r t h e p ers o n [.] ” OCGA § 1 6 -6 -4 (a) (1 ).

Th e ev i d en ce at t ri al

, as rec ou n t ed ab o v e, was su ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt M cM u rri a’ s

co n vi ct i o n fo r ch i l d m o les tat io n , reg ard l es s o f wh et h e r t h e v i ct i m s aw h i s g en i t al s

.

Ra i n ey v. S t a t e , 2 6 1 G a

. A pp

. 8 8 8

, 8 8 9 (1 ) (5 8 4 SE2 d 13 ) (2 00 3 ) (ev i d en ce o f

“ ex p o s i n g s ex u al org an s ev en t h o u g h t h e ch i l d d o es n o t act u al l y s ee t h em ” su ffi ci en t

3t o s u pp o rt ch il d m o l es t at i on co n v i ct i o n ); Ar n ol d v. S t at e , 2 49 Ga. Ap p. 15 6

, 1 5 8 (1 )

(a) (5 4 5 SE2 d 3 1 2) (2 0 0 1) (d efen d an t ’ s “ co n d u ct i s ren d ered n o l es s cu l p ab l e b y t h e

v i ct i m ’ s g o o d j u d gm en t i n tu rn in g her head away .”). M o reo v er, t h e v i ct i m ’ s

cred i b i l i t y , as wel l as an y co n f l i c t s b et w een h er t es t i m o n y an d h er o u t -o f-co u rt

s t at em en t s , were fo r t h e ju ry t o res o l v e. H o g g v. S t a t e , 3 5 6 Ga. Ap p

. 1 1

, 1 3 (1 ) (8 4 6

SE2 d 1 8 3) (2 0 2 0).

Nev ert h el es s , M cM u rri a co n t en d s t h at t he ev i d en ce was in s u ffi ci en t t o s h o w

t h at h e act ed wi t h th e req u i s i t e in t en t t o aro u se o r s at i s fy h i s s ex u al des i re. See OCGA

§ 1 6-6 -4 (a) (1 ). Ho wev er,

[t ] h e ch i l d m ol es t at i o n s t at u t e d o es n o t req u i re p ro o f o f t he d efen d an t ’ s

act u a l aro u s al

. In st ead

, t h e l aw req u ires o n ly t h at t he d efen dan t h av e

act ed wi t h t h e i n ten t t o aro u s e h i s s ex ual d es i res

. T h e q u es t i on o f i n t en t

i s p ecu l iarl y a qu es t i o n o f fact fo r d et erm i n at i on b y t h e ju ry , wh i ch m ay

i n fer a d efen d an t ’ s i n ten t fro m t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed at t ri al

. W h ere th e ju ry fi n d s t h e req u i s it e in t en t

, t h at fi n d i n g wi l l n o t b e rev ers ed on ap peal

p ro v i d ed t h ere i s s o m e ev i d en ce s u p p o rt i n g t h e ju ry ’ s i n feren ce.

(Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Br o wn v. S t a t e , 3 2 4 G a. A p p

. 7 1 8, 7 2 0 -7 2 1 (1 )

(7 5 1 S E 2 d 5 1 7 ) (2 0 1 3); s ee al s o OCGA § 1 6 -2 -6 (Al t h o u gh a d efen dan t i s n ot

p res u m ed t o act wi th cri m i n al i n ten t

, t h e ju r y “ m ay fi n d s u ch i n t en t i o n u p o n

4co n si d erat io n o f t h e wo rd s , co n d u ct

, d em ean o r, m o t i v e, an d al l ot h er ci rcu m s t an ces

co n nect ed wi t h th e act fo r wh i ch t h e accu s ed i s p ro s ecu ted .”).

He r e , t h e ju ry was au t h o ri zed t o i nfer M cM u rri a’ s i n t en t t o aro u se o r g rat i fy

h i s s ex ual d es i res fro m t h e act o f ex p o s in g h i m s el f to a ch i ld

. H a t h co ck v. S t a t e , 2 1 4

Ga. Ap p

. 1 8 8

, 1 9 0 (2 ) (4 4 7 SE2 d 1 0 4 ) (1 9 9 4 ); s ee al s o Br o wn , 3 2 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 7 2 1

(1 ). Th e req u i s it e in t en t was al s o es t ab l i s h ed b y M cM u rri a ’s p r i or co nv i ct i o n s ,

s h o wi n g h i s d i sp o s i t io n t o m ol es t y o u ng g i rl s ; hi s at tem p t t o is o l at e t h e v i ct i m fro m

t h e o t h er ch i l d ren i n o rd er t o co n ceal h i s act ; an d h i s d i rect io n t o t h e v i ct im t o l o o k

d o w n

. See Eu b an ks v. St at e , 33 2 Ga. Ap p. 5 6 8

, 5 7 2 (3 ) (7 7 4 SE2 d 1 4 6 ) (2 0 1 5 );

Ar n ol d

, 2 4 9 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 5 8 (1 ) (a) (i n feren ce o f d efen dan t ’ s s ex u al i n ten t wh en h e

en co urag ed v i ct i m to l o o k at h im wh i l e h e ex po s ed h i m s el f). Th e ev i den ce o f reco rd

was t h u s s u ffi ci en t t o s u p po rt M cM u rri a’ s co n vi ct i o n fo r ch il d m o l es t at i o n

.

2

. M cM u rri a n ex t co n t en d s t h at t ri al co un s el ren d ered i n effect i ve as s i s t an ce by

fai l i n g t o o bject t o i m

p ro p er (a) ch aract er t es t i m on y an d (b ) co m m un i cat i o n s b et ween

t h e b ai l i ff an d t h e j u ro rs

. W e ad d res s each cl ai m i n t urn , an d co ncl u d e t h at h e h as

fai l ed t o m eet h is b u rd en t o s h o w i n effect i v e as s i st an ce o f co u n s el

.

To s u cceed o n a cl ai m t h at co u n s el was co n st it u t i o n al l y i n effect i v e, [M cM u r r i a ] m

u s t s h o w b o t h t hat h i s at t o rn ey ’ s p erfo rm an ce w as

5d efi ci en t

, an d t h at h e was p reju di ced as a res u l t. U n d er t h e fi rs t p ro ng o f

t h i s t es t

, co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm a n c e w i l l be fo u n d d efi ci en t o n l y i f i t w as

o b ject i v el y un reas o n ab l e u n d er t h e ci rcu m s tan ces an d in l ig h t o f

p rev ai l i n g p ro fes si o nal no rm s

. An d u n d er t h e s eco nd p ro n g , p reju d i ce

i s d em o ns t rat ed o n l y wh ere t h ere i s a reas o n ab le p ro bab i l i t y t hat

, ab s en t

c o u n s e l ’ s erro rs , t h e res u l t o f t h e t ri al wo u l d hav e been d i fferen t

. A

“ reas o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y ” i s d efi n ed as a p ro b ab i l it y s u ffi ci en t t o

u n d erm in e co n fi d en ce in t h e o u t co m e. Fai l u re t o s at i s fy ei t her pro n g o f

t h e

. . . t es t i s s u ffi ci en t t o d efeat a cl ai m o f i n effect i v e as s i st an ce, an d

i t i s n ot i n cu m

b en t u p o n t h i s C o u r t t o ex am in e t he o t h er p ro n g

. An d

al t h o u g h b o t h t h e p erfo rm an ce a n d p r eju d ice co m p o n en t s o f an

i n effect iv en es s in qu i ry i n v o l v e m i xed q u es t i o n s o f l aw an d fact

, a t ri al

co u rt ’ s fact u al fi n d i n g s m ad e i n t h e co u rs e o f d eci di n g a n i n effect iv e

as s i s t an ce of co u n s el cl ai m wi l l b e affi rm ed b y t h e rev i ewi n g co u rt

u n l es s cl earl y

erro n eo u s

.

(Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Gr een v. St a t e , 3 0 2 Ga. 8 1 6 , 8 17 -8 1 8 (2 ) (8 0 9

SE2 d 7 3 8) (2 0 1 8).

(a) M cM u rri a fi rs t arg u es t h at t ri al co u n s el was i n effect i ve fo r fai l i n g t o o b ject

t o al l eg edly i m

pro per ch aract er ev i d en ce. Sp eci fi cal l y , M cM urri a po i n t s t o a q u es t i o n

p o s ed b y t h e St at e d u ri n g i t s re-d i rect ex am i n at i o n o f t h e v i ct i m ’ s b ro t her:

[D] o y o u k n o w an y t h i n g ab o ut w h et h er o r n o t -- I k n ow I t ol d y o u

y es t erd ay we p ro b ab ly w o u ld n ’ t t al k ab o u t i t bu t we are g o i n g to

. Do

6y o u kn o w an y t h i n g ab o u t wh et h er o r n o t [M cM u rri a] h as ev er h ad an y

p ri o r h i s t o ry ?

Tri al co u n s el d i d n o t o bject , an d t h e b ro th er res p o n ded i n t h e affi rm at i v e.

Pret erm it t i n g w h et h er t ri al co u ns el w as d efi ci en t f o r f a i l i n g t o o bject t o t h i s

q u es ti o n , M cM urri a h as fai l ed t o es t ab l i s h p reju d i ce becau s e h e h as n o t s h o wn a

reas on ab l e p ro b ab i li t y t h at t h e o u t co m e o f t h e t ri al wo u l d h av e b een d i fferen t h ad t h i s

ev i d en ce b een ex cl u d ed

. See Gr een , 3 0 2 Ga. at 81 7 -8 1 8 (2 ). Fi rs t

, we n o t e t h at t ri al

co u n s e l ack n o w l ed g ed t h at M cM u rri a was a co n v i ct ed s ex o ffen d er i n h i s o p en i n g

s t at em en t t o t h e ju ry

. M o reo v e r , M cM urri a’ s p ri o r co n vi ct io n s were ad m i t t ed i n to

ev i d en ce. An d t h e v ict i m ’ s m o t h er t es t i fi ed t h at s he k n ew M cM u rri a was a reg i s t ered

s ex offen d er. Th us , t h e St at e’ s q u es t i o n t o t he b ro t h er m erel y el i ci t ed c u m u l at i v e

ev i d en ce. An d “ [t ] h e fai l u re o f t ri al co u n sel t o o bject t o s u ch cu m ul at iv e ev i d en ce

d o es n o t s u p p o rt a cl ai m o f i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el .” 2 (Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed .)

2 M cM u rri a’ s rel i an ce o n Mer ri t t v. S t a te

, 2 5 5 G a. 45 9 (3 3 9 SE2 d 5 94 ) (1 9 8 6 )
i s m i s pl aced b ecau s e t h e ch aract er ev i d en ce at i s s u e t h ere w a s no t cu m u l at i v e. Rat h er,
t h e Geo rg i a S u p rem e Co urt fo u n d t h at t es ti m o n y reg ard i n g t h e d efen d an t h av i n g
p rev i o u s l y t h ro w n a m o l o to v co ck t ai l at h i s g ran dfat her ju s t t o “ wat ch a m an b u rn ”

was i rrel ev an t t o th e p res en t m u rd er ch arg es , i n v ol v in g a s h o o t i ng , an d was o ffered

s o l el y t o m al i g n t h e d efen d an t ’ s ch aract er. Id

. at 46 0 (2 ). T h e fact s o f Mer r i tt are t hu s d i s t i n gu i sh ab l e fro m

t he cas e at h an d

.

7Ha n ey v. S t a te

, 3 0 5 Ga. 78 5

, 7 9 0 (2 ) (8 2 7 SE2 d 8 4 3 ) (2 0 19 ); Ga r z a v. S ta t e , 3 4 7 Ga.

Ap p . 3 3 5 , 3 4 1 (2 ) (b ) (8 1 9 SE2 d 4 9 7) (2 01 8 ).

(b ) Fi n al l y , M cM u rri a co n t en d s t h at t ri al co u n s el was in effect i v e fo r fai l i n g to

o b ject t o i m pro p er co m

m un i cat i o n s b et ween t h e b ai l i ff an d t h e ju ro rs

.

Here, d u ri n g a b r e ak i n t h e p ro ceed i n g s p ri o r t o t he cl o s e o f t h e ev id en ce, a

ju ro r as ked t h e b ai l i ff i f t h e j u r o r s co u l d b eg i n d i scu s s in g t h e cas e. Th e b ai l i ff

res p o n d ed i n t h e n e g a t i v e an d

, o n ce al l t h e ju ro rs were pres en t i n t h e ju ry ro o m ,

r e i t e r at ed t h at t h ey were n o t t o d el i b erat e u n ti l al l t he ev i d en ce was i n

. Aft er t h e

b ai l i ff rep o rt ed t h e i n ci d en t i n o p en co u rt

, b u t o u t s i d e t he p res en ce o f th e ju ro rs , t ri al

co u ns el d i d n o t o b

ject

.

I t i s wel l es t ab l is h ed t h at wh ere s u ch an i m p ro per co m

m u n i cat i o n

o ccu rs , t h ere i s a p res u m

p t i o n o f harm an d t h e b u rd en i s o n th e St at e t o

s h o w t h e l ack th er e o f

. H o wev er, wh ere th e s u b s t an ce o f th e

c o m m u n i cat i o n i s es t ab l i s h ed w i t ho u t co n trad ict i o n , t h e fact s

t h em s el ves m ay es t ab l i s h t h e l ack o f p reju d i ce o r h arm t o t h e d efen d an t

.

(Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at io n o m i t t ed .) Ad o r n o v. S ta t e , 2 36 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8 8

, 5 90 (2 ) (5 1 2

SE2 d 7 0 3 ) (1 9 9 9); s ee al s o La ws o n v. S t a t e , 2 8 0 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 0

, 8 7 2 (1 ) (6 3 5 SE2 d

2 5 9 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (“ wh ere th ere is n o su g g e s t i o n t h a t ju ro rs w ere i n fl u en ced b y t h e

i m p ro p er co m

m u n icat i o n , t h e p res u m

p t io n o f p reju d i ce i s reb u t t ed .”).

8W e fai l t o s ee h o w th e b ai l i ff’ s co m m u n i cat i on , m erel y rei terat i n g a freq u en t l y

g i v en ch arg e o f t h e co u rt

, i n fl u en ced t h e ju ry o r o t h erwi s e p reju d i ced M cM u rri a. See

Ad o rn o , 2 3 6 Ga. A p p. at 5 9 0 (2 ); La ws o n , 2 8 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 7 2 (1 ). Co m p are S t a t e

v. McCa r g o , 3 5 2 Ga. Ap p

. 5 0 1

, 5 0 1-5 0 4 (8 3 5 SE2 d 3 1 7 ) (2 0 1 9 ) (St at e co u l d n ot

reb u t t he p res u m

p t i o n of harm wh ere b ai l iff t o l d j u ro rs t h at t h e cas e h ad p rev i o u s l y

en d ed i n a m is t ri al an d o n e o f t h e j u ro rs l at er t es t i fi ed t hat t h e ju ry co n s i d ered

b ai l i ff’ s co m

m en ts dur ing de l ib erat i o n s ). As su ch

, McM u rri a can n o t d em o n s t rat e t h at

t ri al co un s el ’ s fai l u re t o o b j ect t o t h e b ai l i ff’ s co m

m en t s affect ed t h e o ut co m e o f t h e

t ri al

. See Gr i

f f in v. S ta t e , 3 0 9 Ga. 5 1 6

, 5 2 0 (2 ) (8 4 7 SE2 d 1 6 8 ) (2 0 2 0 ) (“ Th e fai l u re

t o p u rs u e a f

u t i l e o b ject io n d o es n o t am o u n t t o in effect i v e as s i s t an ce.”) (ci t at i o n

o m it t ed ). Acco rd i n g l y , M cM u rri a fai l s t o m eet h i s b urd en t o s h o w t hat t ri al co u n s el

ren d ered i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce.

Fo r al l t h es e reas o n s , t h e t ri al c o u r t p r o p erl y d en i ed M cM u rri a’ s m o t i o n fo r

n ew t ri al

, an d we affi rm

.

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

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

.

9