Watson v. State

The trial court's jury instruction, in which it instructed that a victim under the age of 16 lacks the legal capacity to consent to sexual conduct, was improper when given in relation to the offense of sexual battery, because that offense does not require any sexual contact at all.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Patrick Watson was convicted on two counts of sexual battery against his minor daughter and one count of child molestation against another victim. In our opinion in Watson v. State, 329 Ga. App. 334 765 SE2d 24 2014, we affirmed his convictions. In so doing, in Division 3 b of our opinion we rejected Watson’s argument that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that under Georgia law a person under the age of sixteen lacks legal capacity to consent to sexual conduct. Id. at 338-340 3 b. In Watson v. State, __ Ga. __ __ SE2d __ Case No. S15G0385, decided Sept. 14, 2015, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the judgment below on the sexual battery convictions, holding that this particular instruction is improper when given in relation to the offense of sexual battery. Id. at __. The Supreme Court noted that Watson’s conviction on child molestation was not at issue on certiorari and did not address any of the other grounds upon which Watson had challenged his convictions.

We therefore vacate Division 3 b of our opinion in Watson v. State, supra, 329 Ga. App. 334, which addressed the propriety of the jury instruction described above, and in place of Division 3 b we adopt as our own the Supreme Court’s opinion in Watson v. State, supra, __ Ga. __. Because the Supreme Court neither addressed nor considered the other portions of our earlier opinion, and those other portions are not inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s own opinion, those other portions become binding upon the return of the remittitur. Shadix v. Carroll County, 274 Ga. 560, 563 1 554 SE2d 465 2001.

Watson v. State

The trial court's jury instruction, in which it instructed that a victim under the age of 16 lacks the legal capacity to consent to sexual conduct, was improper when given in relation to the offense of sexual battery, because that offense does not require any sexual contact at all.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report