Goodwin v. State

The child molestation defendant failed to support his claim that certain evidence was admissible under the necessity exception to the hearsay rule based on the inaccessibility of the detective who conducted the victim's initial interview.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury convicted Larry Gerald Goodwin of two counts of child molestation and one count of misdemeanor marijuana possession, and sentenced him to serve 20 years in confinement followed by 20 years on probation. The trial court denied Goodwin’s motion for new trial, finding that his trial counsel had not been ineffective. On appeal, Goodwin contends that the trial court erred in not allowing him to present hearsay evidence about the victim’s first interview with authorities, and that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects relating to that interview. He also contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to put him on the stand to testify, and that the trial court erred in limiting his ability to question the State’s trial counsel under oath during the hearing on his motion for new trial. For the reasons that follow, we find no error and affirm.

Goodwin was indicted for two counts of child molestation.1 The indictment charged him with committing the offenses between January 1, 2009 and April 27, 2010 against the same victim who was younger than 16. In Count 1 he was accused of having the victim place her hands on his penis and rub, with the intent to arouse and satisfy his sexual desires, and in Count 2 he was accused of placing his hands on the child’s vagina, with the same intent. The State called three witnesses to prosecute the molestation charges: an investigator with the Spalding County Sheriff’s Department, the victim, who was eight years old at the time of trial, and the victim’s mother as a rebuttal witness.2

Goodwin v. State

The child molestation defendant failed to support his claim that certain evidence was admissible under the necessity exception to the hearsay rule based on the inaccessibility of the detective who conducted the victim's initial interview.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report