Hatley v. State

Even if the trial court erroneously admitted the child victim's hearsay statements to the forensic interviewer and the child and mother's statements to police at the scene of the crime, any error in admitting the statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Johnny Martin Hatley was convicted of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, and two counts of sexual battery against a person under sixteen.1 He appeals, asserting, inter alia, the “Child Hearsay Statute,” OCGA § 24-3-16, is unconstitutional because it violates the Confrontation Clause. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Viewing the evidence in a light favorable to the verdict, as we are bound to do, we find the following: Hatley approached C.C., the three-year-old victim, her mother and younger sister, late on a cold evening in April, 2009. Because the family was homeless, Hatley offered to pay for a motel room, and C.C.’s mother, having seen Hatley previously at a church, accepted the offer. After Hatley and the family were settled in the motel, C.C.’s mother left Hatley with her children while she walked to a store to find a bottle for her younger child. When she returned to the room, she observed Hatley on the bed bending over C.C., who was in the fetal position, with her pants and underclothes pulled down.

C.C.’s mother pushed Hatley away and asked “what the expletive you doing” Hatley responded that he was helping C.C. pull up her pants after she used the bathroom. C.C.’s mother rhetorically asked Hatley why he needed to place C.C. on the bed to pull her pants up. Then, knowing that C.C. could pull up her own pants, C.C.’s mother asked C.C. what had happened. C.C. responded: “mama, he sucked me.” At that point, C.C.’s mother phoned 911, but Hatley forced her to hang up and ordered her to leave. As the family left, police arrived in response to the disconnected 911 call. Hatley was still at the motel. Three police officers briefly interviewed C.C., who told them that Hatley “sucked” her. When police asked where, she pointed to her vagina. She also told one of the officers that Hatley “kissed” her in the bathroom, and put his “pee-pee” in her mouth. Hatley denied that he touched C.C. or put her on the bed.

Hatley v. State

Even if the trial court erroneously admitted the child victim's hearsay statements to the forensic interviewer and the child and mother's statements to police at the scene of the crime, any error in admitting the statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report