Hoke v. State

The trial court's actions of granting a continuance of the trial ex parte and excusing the jury did not require reversal of the defendant's convictions for aggravated child molestation and child molestation, since the State showed that the absent witnesses were material to the case and jeopardy had not attached as the original jury had not yet been sworn.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Stephen R. Hoke appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial following his conviction by a jury of aggravated child molestation1 one count and child molestation2 three counts. Hoke contends that the trial court erred by 1 granting ex parte a continuance of the trial and excusing the unsworn jury, 2 failing to sua sponte recuse itself, 3 allowing a certain witness to bolster the victim’s credibility, 4 admitting unrelated uncharged acts committed against the victim’s mother and failing to give a limiting instruction as to that evidence, 5 admitting an unredacted recording of a police interview of Hoke containing allegedly improper comments on Hoke’s and the victim’s credibility. He also raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on certain enumerations. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Construed in favor of the verdict,3 the evidence shows that Tina Hoke moved to Georgia from Ohio with her eight-year-old daughter, A. C. Tina moved in with Stephen Hoke to get away from her husband, Stephen’s brother, Charles Hoke, who lived in Ohio. During the time Tina and A. C. stayed with Stephen, Stephen touched A. C. inappropriately while bathing her, “french kissed” her, masturbated with her, forced her to perform oral sex on him, and touched their genitals together. A. C. disclosed the abuse to her mother, who confronted Stephen, and he denied it and beat A. C. based on the accusation. Thereafter, on a visit to Ohio, A. C. disclosed the abuse to her step-father, Charles, who consulted an attorney and ultimately contacted A. C.’s biological father, Matthew Corliss. Based on advice from his attorney, Corliss arranged for a forensic interview. During a subsequent police investigation, Hoke volunteered to be interviewed by police, at which time he denied the abuse.

Hoke v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report