THI RD DI VI SI ON

ELLI NGTON, P. J.

, DI LLA RD and M C FA DDEN, 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.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

Febr uar y 2, 2016



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 5 A2 18 0 . FRANKLIN v . THE STATE.

D I LLA R D , J u dg e.

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

, Ch arl es Fran k l i n was co nv i ct ed o f rap e, ag g rav at ed

s o d o m y

, ag g rav at ed as s au l t

, ag g rav at ed b at tery

, fal s e i m p ri s o nm en t, an d t h e f

al s e

rep o rt o f a cri m e. Fran k li n ’ s so l e co n t en t i on on ap p eal i s t h at t h e tri al co u rt erred in

fai l i n g t o s u a s

po n t e g i v e an i n s t ru ct i o n o n m i s t ak e o f fact

. Fo r t h e reas o ns s et fo rt h

i n f r a , we reject t h i s co nt en t i o n an d affi rm

.

Vi ewed i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o th e ju ry ’ s gu i l t y v erd i c t

, 1 t h e reco rd

refl ect s t h at at ap p ro x i m at el y 8 :0 0 a.m

. o n Ap ri l 1 3

, 2 0 1 0

, t h e v i ct i m

, Fran k l i n ’ s t h en

wi fe, m et h i m at a ren tal ho m e t h at was t he s ub ject o f a d is p u t e b et ween t h e n ewl y

s ep arat ed co up l e. W h en t h e wi fe arri v ed

, Fran k l i n i n v i t ed h er i n s i d e an d s ho wed h er

1 S ee, e.g

. , Mu s e v. S ta t e , 3 2 3 Ga. Ap p . 7 79 , 7 80 (7 4 8 SE2 d 1 3 6 ) (2 0 1 3 ).o v er t o a cred en za t o rev i ew an d s i g n s o m e p ap erwo rk rel at ed t o t h e p ro p ert y

. Bu t as

t h e v i ct i m b en t o v er to s i g n t h e pap erwo rk

, Fran kl i n s t ru ck h er i n t h e h ead fro m

b eh in d wi t h a m et al b as eb al l bat

. He t h en p ro ceed ed t o b eat t h e v i ct i m ’ s h ead

, arm s

,

an d b o d y

, b efo r e d rag g i n g h er b l o o d ied b o d y i n t o t he di n in g ro o m

, p ro pp i n g h er

ag ai n s t a wal l , an d b ran d i s h i n g a h an d g u n at h er.

W h en t h e v i ct i m rai s ed an arm t o s h i el d hers el f, Fran k l i n s t ru ck h er y et ag ai n,

p i ck ed h er u p o f

f t h e fl o o r, an d t h en m o ved her i n t o a b ed ro om aro u n d t he co rn er.

On ce t h ere, Fran k l i n p ro ceed ed t o b i n d t h e v i ct i m ’ s arm s an d l eg s to th e po s t ers o f

t h e b ed wi t h a b el t

, d uct t ap e, an d wi re. Th e v i ct i m was ab l e t o r e t ri ev e t h e b at an d

s wi n g i t at Fran k l i n, b u t he wres t ed i t fro m her an d b eat h er o n ce ag ai n ab ou t t h e h ead

an d ab d o m en

. Fran k l i n t hen u s ed a b ox c u t t e r to rem o ve t h e v i ct im ’ s cl o t h i n g,

l acerat i n g h er l eg i n t h e pro ces s, an d t h en un d res sed

. Th ereaft er, Fran k li n rep eat ed l y

rap ed t h e v i ct im

, an d at o n e p o i n t an a l l y s o d o m i zed h er, u n t i l ap p ro x im at el y 3 : 3 0

p .m

. W h en Fran k l in was n o t rap i n g t h e v i ct i m

, h e was y el l i n g at h er ab o u t h er

“ fai l u res ” as a wi fe an d m ot h er, an d t h e v i ct i m ob s erv ed th at t h e h an d gu n was i n t h e

ro o m d u ri n g t h e en ti re h arro wi n g o rd eal

.

At s om e p o i n t aft er Fran k l i n h ad s ev erel y b eat en t h e v i ct i m an d b o u n d h er to

t h e bed

, sh e deci d ed t o s t o p res i s t i n g i n an effo rt t o cal m Fran k l i n an d p ers u ad e h i m

2t o u n t ie h er. Sh e fi rs t as k ed h i m t o u n t i e o ne o f h er arm s t h at h ad b eco m e n u m b an d

s wo ll en

, an d t hen s h e req u es t ed t h at h e un t i e h er l eg s u nd er t he g ui s e th at in t erco u rs e

wo u l d “ be eas i er.” Ov er t h e co urs e o f th e d ay

, Fran k l i n b eg an t o s u g g es t t hat t h e t wo

o f t h em s h o u l d ag ai n be t o g e t h e r as a co u p l e, t o wh i ch th e v i ct i m

— wh o was

p an ick i n g b ecau s e s h e h ad l o s t a l o t o f b l o od fro m th e g as h i n h er h ead

— ag reed

. Sh e

t h en req u es t ed t h at Fran k l in ad m i n i s t er m ed i cal ai d an d ag reed t o g o al o n g wi t h a

h o m e-i n v as i o n s t o r y t h at Fran k l i n co n co ct ed i n o rd er t o recei v e t reat m en t fo r h er

i n ju ri es

.

Su b s eq uen t l y , Fran k l i n pl aced a b an d -ai d o n t h e v i ct i m ’ s i n ju red l eg , h i d t h e

v ari o u s i m

pl em en t s t h at h e had u s ed i n th e at tack

, k i ck ed i n t he b ack d oo r t o m ak e t h e

s cen e l oo k l i ke a ho m e in v as i o n

, a n d c a l l e d 91 1 t o rep ort t h at h e had j u s t ret u rn ed

h o m e t o s ee t w o m en fl eei n g t h e h o u s e aft er s ex u al l y as s au l t in g h i s wi fe. W h en l aw

e n f o r cem en t arri v ed an d t h e v i ct i m was fi n al l y ab l e t o s p eak wi t h an o ffi cer al o ne,

s h e i n fo rm ed h i m o f wh at h ad real l y o ccu rred

, an d Fran k li n w as i m m ed i at el y p l aced

u n d er arres t

. Fo l l o wi n g t ri al

, Fran k l i n was co nv i ct ed o f t he o ffen s es en u m erat ed

s u p r a

. 2 Th i s ap p eal fo ll o ws

.

2 A l t h o u g h Fran k l i n d o es no t ch al len g e th e s u ffi ci en cy o f th e ev i d en ce o n

ap p eal

, we n ev ert h el es s fi n d t h e ev i d en ce s u ffi ci en t t o en ab le a rat i o n al t ri er o f fact

t o fi n d Fran k l i n g u i l t y o f al l t h e cri m es fo r wh i ch he was co n v i ct ed b ey o n d a

3As p rev i o u s l y n o t ed

, Fran k li n ’ s s o l e arg u m en t o n ap p eal is t h at t he tri al co u rt

erred i n fai l i n g t o s u a s

p o n t e g i v e an i n st ru ct io n o n m i s t ak e o f fact

. W e d i s ag ree.

To b eg i n wi th

, i t is t ru e t h at t h e tri al co urt m u s t “ ch arg e th e ju ry o n t h e

d efen d an t ’ s s o l e d efen s e, ev en wi t h o u t a wri t t en req u es t

, i f t h ere i s s o m e ev i d en ce to

s u p p ort t h e ch arg e.” 3 An d wi t h res p ect t o “ m i s t ak e o f fact

, ” wh i ch i s an affi rm at i v e

d efen s e

, a p e r s o n “ s hal l n o t b e fo u n d g u i l t y of a cri m e i f t h e act o r o m i s s i o n t o act

co n st i t u t in g th e cri m e was i nd u ced b y a m i s ap p reh en s io n o f fact wh i ch

, i f t ru e, wo u ld

h av e ju s t i fi ed t h e act o r o m i s s i o n .” 4 Ad d i t i o n a l l y, b e cau s e m i s t ak e o f fact i s an

affi rm at i v e d efen s e, ev en i f i t was n o t Fran k l in ’ s s o l e d efen s e, i f t h e d efen s e was

rai s ed b y t h e ev id en ce,

t h e tri al co u rt wo u l d h av e b een req u i red t o p res en t t h e affi rm a t i v e

d efen s e t o t h e j u ry as p art o f t he cas e i n i t s ch arg e, ev en ab s en t a

req u es t

. Th e affi rm at i v e d efe n s e

, h o wev er, wo u l d n o t h av e t o be

reas on ab l e d o u b t

. S

ee Ja cks o n v. Vi r

g i n i a

, 44 3 U. S. 3 0 7 (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1

, 6 1 L E2 d 5 6 0 )

(1 9 7 9).

3 Pr i ce v. S t a t e

, 2 8 9 Ga. 4 5 9

, 45 9 (2 ) (7 1 2 SE2 d 8 2 8) (2 0 1 1 ) (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ); a cco r d Ta r ves t a d v. S t a t e

, 2 6 1 Ga. 6 0 5 , 6 0 6 (4 0 9 SE2 d 5 1 3 ) (1 9 9 1 ).

4 OCGA § 1 6 -3 -5 ; s ee a l

s o Pr i ce , 2 8 9 Ga. at 5 49 (2 ).

4s p eci fi cal ly ch arg ed i f t h e cas e as a wh o l e h ad b een fai rl y p res en t ed t o

t h e ju ry

. 5

Bu t i m p ort an tl y

, o u r Su prem e Co u rt h as p rev io u s l y h el d t h at

, i n cas es i n wh i ch a ju ry

fi nd s a d efen d an t g u i l t y o f fo rci b l e r a p e aft er p ro per i n st ru ct io n

, “ [t ] h e el em en t o f

fo rce neg at es an y po s s i b l e m i s t ak e as t o co n s en t ,” 6 su ch t h at th e co u rt d o es n o t err by

fai l i n g t o ch arg e o n m i s t ak e o f fact

. 7

A p ers o n co m

m i t s fo rci bl e rap e wh en “ h e h as carn a l k no wl ed g e o f[ ]

. . . [a]

fem al e fo rci b l y an d ag ai n s t h er wi l l [.] ” 8 An d a p ers on co m m i t s ag g rav at ed s o d o m

y

wh en h e o r s h e “ co m

m i t s s o d o m

y wi t h fo rce an d ag ai n s t t h e wi l l o f t h e o t h er p ers o n

5 Pr i ce , 2 8 9 Ga. at 4 5 9 -6 0 (2 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco r d Bo oker v. S t a t e

, 2 4 7 Ga. 7 4

, 7 4 (2 7 4 SE2 d 3 3 4 ) (1 9 8 1 ); Red d in g v. St a t e

, 3 1 8 Ga. A p p

. 8 4, 8 6 (1 )

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

6 La ma r v. St a t e

, 24 3 Ga. 4 0 1

, 4 0 3 (6 ) (2 5 4 SE2 d 3 5 3 ) (1 9 7 9); a cco r d Ba i s e

v. S t at e

, 2 3 2 Ga. Ap p

. 5 5 6

, 55 8 (1 ) (5 0 2 SE2 d 4 9 2) (1 9 9 8 ); Jo hn s on v. S t a t e

, 2 0 4 Ga.

Ap p . 3 6 9 , 3 6 9 (1 ) (4 1 9 SE2 d 9 6 ) (1 99 2 ).

7 S ee La m a r

, 2 43 Ga. at 4 0 3 (6 ) (h o l di n g t h at ap p el l an t ’ s co n t en t i o n t h at t ri al

co u rt erred i n fai l in g t o ch arg e o n m i s t ak e o f fact was w i t ho u t m eri t wh en ju ry was

p ro p erl y ch arg ed as t o fo rci b l e rap e an d fo u n d ap p el l an t g u i l t y o f s am e); s ee a l s o

Jo h ns o n , 2 0 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 3 6 9 (1 ).

8 OCGA § 1 6 -6 -1 (a) (1 ).

5. . . .” 9 Here, m i s t ak e o f fact was n o t Fran k l i n’ s s o l e d efen s e t o t h es e ch arg es

, as h e

cl ai m s o n ap peal

. In s tead

, t h e reco rd refl ect s t h at Fran k l i n

, wh o d i d n o t t es t i fy i n h i s

o wn d efen s e, at t em

p t ed to s h o w t h at i n t erco u rs e wi t h t he v i ct i m was co n s en s u al

, n ot

t h at h e m i s t ak en l y b el ieved t h at i t was co n s en s u al

.

I n de e d

, a d et ect i ve wh o i n v es t i g at ed t h e cas e an d i n t erv i ewed Franklin te stif ie d

t h at Fran k l i n m ai n t ai n ed t h a t h e d i d n o t rap e t h e v i ct im b ecau s e ei t h er he an d t h e

v i ct i m en g ag ed i n co n s en s u al i n t erco u rs e p ri o r t o h er at t ack b y t wo u n k n o wn

as s ai lan ts o r, i n t h e al t ern at i v e, t h at h e an d t he v i ct i m wi l l i n g l y en g ag ed i n “ k i n k y ”

s ex aft er a do m es t ic d i s p u t e d u ri n g wh i ch h e s t ru ck t h e v ict i m

. An d i n cl o s i n g

arg u m en t

, Fran k l i n ’ s co u n s el rep eat ed l y arg u ed t h at t h e St at e fai l ed t o p ro v e t h at t h e

i n t erco u rs e w as n o t co n s en s u al an d s u g g es t ed t hat t h e v i ct im had fab ri cat ed an d

o rch es t rat ed t h e en t ire en co u n t er t o ex act rev en ge u p o n Fran k l i n fo r pro b l em s i n t h ei r

rel at i o n s h i p

. In co n tras t

, o n ap p eal

, Fran k l i n fo cu ses o n tes t im on y b y th e v i ct i m t h at

Fran k l i n m i g h t h av e b el i ev ed t h e in t erco u rs e was co ns en su al wh en sh e fei g n ed

i n t eres t i n o rd er t o d i ffu s e t h e s i t u at i o n an d s urv i v e t h e at t ack

.

9 OCGA § 1 6 -6 -2 (a) (2 ); s ee a l s o OCGA § 1 6 -6 -2 (a) (1 ) (“ A p ers o n co m m i t s

t h e o ffen s e o f s o d o m

y wh en h e o r s h e p erfo rm s o r su b m it s t o an y s ex ual act i nv o l v i n g

t h e s ex o rg an s o f o n e p ers o n an d t h e m o ut h o r an u s o f an o t h er.”).

6Ho wev er, al t h ou g h t h e v i ct im s u g g es ted t h at Fran k l i n m i g h t hav e b el i ev ed t h at

t h e in t erco u rs e was co n s en s u al

, s h e al s o u n eq u iv o cal l y t es t i fi ed t h at s h e w as i n fear

fo r h er l i fe, s he act ed as sh e d i d t o p rev en t Fran kl in fro m ki l l i n g h er, s h e d i d n o t wan t

Fran k l i n t o t hi n k s h e was go i n g t o at t em p t an es cap e, an d th e o n l y m es s ag e s h e was

t ry i n g t o co n v ey was t h at s h e d i d n o t wan t t o fi g h t h im an y fu rt h er. Th e v i ct i m fu rt h er

t es t i fi ed t h at i f Fran k l i n “ d o es n ’ t t h i n k h e’ s rap i n g m e

, i f h e t h i n k s i t ’ s fi n e, t h en

s o m et h in g i s wro n g wi t h h i m

. I’ m s i tt i ng on t h e b ed b l e e d i n g a n d h e’ s cu t t i n g m y

cl o t h es off an d h e’ s t h in k i n g t hat t h i s s ex i s co ns en s ual .” Fi n al l y

, t h e i n v es t i g at i n g

d et ect i v e al s o t es t i fi e d t h a t t h e v i ct i m t o l d h i m s h e h ad b een i n s t ru ct ed i n a s el fd efen s e cl as s t o “ k i n d o f g o al on g wi t h it ” t o eas e an y t en s i o n wi t h an at t ack er, b ut

t h at s h e had n o t wan t ed t o en gag e i n i n t erco u rs e o r an al s o d o m y an d was i n s t ead “

ju s t

t ry i n g t o s t ay

al iv e.”

Th e d efen s e o f m i s t ak e of fact

, t h en

, was no t reas o n ab l y (o r ev en rem o tel y )

rai s ed b y t h e ev i d en ce w h en t he v i ct i m ’ s ph y si cal res i s t an ce en d ed an d h er d em ean o r

ch an ge d a f

t e r b ei n g b ru t al l y b eat en wi t h a b as eb al l b at

, t h reat en ed at g u n p o i n t

,

d rag g ed b l eed in g t h ro u g h a h o u s e, ru t h l e s s l y b o u n d t o a b ed

, b eat en w i t h t h e b at

a g a i n aft er res i s t i n g, an d l acerat ed wi th a b o x cu t t er wh i l e h er cl o t hes were fo rci b l y

rem o v ed , al l wh i le Fran kl i n k ep t a h an d g u n n earb y an d rep eat ed l y v erb al l y

b erat ed

7t h e v i ct i m

. 1 0 In d eed , as o u r Su p rem e Co u rt h as reco g ni zed , a l ack o f res i s t an ce t h at

i s i n d uced b y f

e a r i s n ot l eg al l y co g n i zab l e co n s en t b u t in s t ead co n s t i t u t es fo rce. 1 1

An d h ere, b ecau s e t h e ju ry was o t h erwi s e p ro p erl y

i n s t ru ct ed

, 1 2 an d fo u n d Fran k l in

1 0 Cf

. Pr i ce

, 2 8 9 Ga. at 4 6 0 ( 2 ) ( h o l d i ng t h at ap p el l an t was en ti t l ed t o ju ry

ch arg e as t o m is t ak e o f fact in p ro s ecu t i o n fo r b u rg lary wh en he co n s is ten t l y t es t i fi ed

t h at h e s aw “ fo r sal e” a n d “ o p en h o us e” s i g n s

, w h i ch l ed h im t o b el iev e h e was

au t h o ri zed t o en t er h o u se; t h at h e e n t e r e d t h ro u g h op en d oo r an d s p o k e wi t h h i s

m o th er o n p h o n e ab ou t b u y i n g h o u s e wh i le ex am in i n g t h e i n s i d e; an d t wo o t h er

wi t n es s es tes t i fi ed ab ou t “ fo r s al e” an d “ op en h o us e” s i g n s

— al l o f wh i ch was

ev i d en ce t h at ap p el l an t act ed u n d e r m i s ap p reh en s i o n o f fact wh i ch

, i f t ru e, wo u ld

h av e ju s t i fi ed h is en t ry i n t o h o u s e an d wo u ld h av e au t h o ri zed ju ry t o a c q u i t h i m o f

b u rg lary ).

1 1 Der r v. S t a t e

, 2 3 9 Ga. 5 8 2

, 5 8 2 (1 ) (2 3 8 SE2 d 3 5 5) (1 9 7 7 ); Fa rmer v. S t a t e

, 1 9 7 Ga. Ap p

. 2 67

, 26 7 (1 ) (3 9 8 SE2 d 2 3 5 ) (1 9 90 ); W a l k e r v. S t a t e

, 1 5 7 Ga. Ap p.

7 2 8

, 7 2 9 (1 ) (2 7 8 SE2 d 4 8 7 ) (1 9 8 1 ); s ee a ls o Da s h er v. S t a t e

, 28 1 Ga. Ap p

. 3 2 6

, 3 2 8

(1 ) (a) (6 3 6 S E 2 d 8 3 ) (2 0 0 6 ) (“ [A] v i ct i m ’ s l ack o f res i st an ce i nd u ced b y fear

au t h o ri zes a fi n d i n g of fo rce.”); Geckl es v. S t a t e

, 1 7 7 Ga. Ap p

. 7 0, 7 3 -7 4 (3 ) ( 3 3 8

S E2 d 4 7 3) (1 9 8 6 ) (“ [T] es t i m o n y reg ard i ng a k n i fe an d ap p el l an t ’ s al l eg ed as s a u l t

wi t h s ai d k n i fe u p o n t h e v i ct i m ’ s m o t h er was rel ev an t as t en d i n g to ex pl ai n wh y t h e

v i ct i m feared ap pel l an t an d t o es t ab l i s h t hat an y ‘ co n s en t ’ o n t he p art o f t h e v i ct i m

t o t he s ex u al act s ch arg ed i n t h e i n d i ct m en t was i n d u ced b y fear.”).

1 2 A rev iew o f t he ju ry i ns t ru ct i o n s sh o ws t h at t h e tri al co u rt p ro p erl y i n s t ru ct ed

t h e ju ry as t o t h e t erm s o f t h e i n d i ct m en t, t h e p res um p t i o n o f i n n o cen ce, t he St at e’ s

b u rd en of p ro o f, t he es s en t i al el em en t o f i n t en t, an d t h e d efi n i t i o n s o f rap e an d

ag g rav at ed s o d o m

y

.

8g u i l t y o f fo rci b l e rap e an d fo rci b l e ag g rav at ed s o do m y

, t h e el em en t o f fo rce n eg at ed

an y p o s s ib l e m i s t ak e as t o co ns en t

. 1 3

Acco rd i ng l y , fo r al l o f t h e fo reg oi n g reas o n s , we affi rm

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . El l i n g t o n , P. J., a n d McFa d den , J., co ncu r

.

1 3 S ee La m a r

, 2 4 3 G a

. at 4 0 3 (6 ); s ee a l s o W a l ker

, 15 7 Ga. Ap p

. at 7 2 9 (1 )

(h o l d i n g t h a t e v i d e n c e was “ m o re t h an su ffi ci en t t o es tab l is h t h at t he vi ct i m was

rap ed ,” d es p i t e a l ack o f ph y s i cal res i s t an ce b y t h e v i ct i m

, wh en t h e ap p el l an t “ b ro k e

t h ro u g h a l o ck ed do o r, ju m p ed o n t o p o f th e v ict i m an d p u t h i s h an d o ver h er m o u t h ”

an d v i ct i m

as k ed ap p el l an t n ot t o h u rt h er, i n di cat i n g h er fear).

9