Court Opinion

ID: 9624222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:54:37.264398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:40.551537
License: Public Domain

Eldridge, Judge,
concurring specially in judgment only.
I cannot concur fully in the majority opinion for the following reasons:
1. In Division 2, I do not believe that the majority’s additional analysis regarding “the nature of [Lovell’s] unresponsive comment and the lack of apparent prejudice” is required by law. I find that, after the trial court’s thorough curative instructions, the poll of the jury and its response (or lack thereof) was legally sufficient to determine that the trial court did not err in denying Castro’s motion for mistrial.4
[T]he trial court’s poll of the jury reflects that no juror believed he or she could not follow the curative instruction. Moreover, qualified jurors, under oath, are presumed in the absence of clear contrary evidence to follow the procedural directives of and to respond honestly to questions of the trial judge.
*552Decided December 3, 1999
Reconsideration denied December 16, 1999
Garcia v. State, 207 Ga. App. 653, 658 (428 SE2d 666) (1993); Smith v. State, 267 Ga. 372, 374 (3) (477 SE2d 827) (1996). Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of the motion for mistrial was not error. 5
2. Also, contrary to the majority, I would not characterize the evidence in this case as “sufficient” — but overwhelming. Three-year-old J. C. was able to sustain for over a year a consistent version of sexual abuse by the defendants, which was a “highly unlikely” feat according to forensic psychologist Susan Campbell; three different psychologists6 testified that J. C.’s outcry fit within the parameters of well-recognized credibility standards; outcry witnesses repeated the same version of sexual abuse by her parents as told to them by J. C.; in two video tapes, J. C. repeated her statements about her parents’ abuse; evidence of a “child sexual behavior checklist” was introduced showing J. C. had more sexual knowledge and acted more sexually that 99.999 percent of similar children; statements from J. C.’s father (defendant Jose Castro) were introduced that he “noticed [J. C.] awake” and watching as the defendants had sex, and “he had noticed her watching them have sex on at least one occasion and that perhaps she had seen them other times also”; J. C.’s outcry was further corroborated by Dr. Sara Rogers who testified that a physical examination of three-year-old J. C. showed severe vaginal penetration that had completely removed the hymenal membrane.
Clearly there was overwhelming evidence by which the jury could judge the victim’s credibility, notwithstanding Lovell’s single improper statement — a statement the jury confirmed it would not credit. Further, contrary to the majority’s position, it is not “inappropriate and fundamentally unfair” to consider cill of the evidence against Maria Castro, as she is a party to any crimes committed by Jose Castro and vice versa, and the trial court charged on parties to a crime. OCGA § 16-2-21. Accordingly, it is “‘highly probable that [Lovell’s statement] did not contribute to the judgment.’ ” Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 61 (230 SE2d 869) (1976); Huntley v. State, 271 Ga. 227, 230 (5) (518 SE2d 890) (1999).
*553James C. Wyatt, for appellant.
TambraP. Colston, District Attorney, FredR. Simpson, C. Stephen Cox, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

 In the case cited by the majority for the proposition that further analysis is necessary, the trial court issued curative instructions, alone, and did not poll the jury to determine the effect of the improper testimony. James v. State, 270 Ga. 675, 677 (4) (513 SE2d 207) (1999).

 Accord Dennis v. State, 263 Ga. 257, 258 (2) (430 SE2d 742) (1993); Griffin v. State, 221 Ga. App. 138, 140 (3) (470 SE2d 744) (1996); Touchton v. State, 210 Ga. App. 700 (437 SE2d 370) (1993); McDaniel v. State, 204 Ga. App. 753, 754 (2) (420 SE2d 636) (1992); Harris v. State, 202 Ga. App. 618, 620 (414 SE2d 919) (1992); Truitt v. State, 168 Ga. App. 616 (1) (309 SE2d 895) (1983).

 Clinical psychologist Eva Lovell, forensic psychologist Campbell, and neuropsychologist William Blackerby.