Hart v. State

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's objection to an expert witness's testimony that the victim's demeanor, disclosure and behavior were consistent with that of a child who had been sexually abused.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury convicted Devor Emanual Hart of aggravated sodomy and child molestation, and the trial court sentenced him to serve 20 years. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in several evidentiary rulings, but for the reasons that follow, we affirm the convictions. “Following a criminal conviction, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.” Citation omitted. Fortune v. State , 304 Ga. App. 294, 295 696 SE2d 120 2010. So viewed, the evidence at trial established that the 6-year-old victim and her 12-year-old brother were staying with the 17-year-old Hart and his parents in the summer of 2005 while their mother was in the Army and stationed in Korea. When the mother returned to the States, she, her long-term boyfriend, and her children were at a restaurant when the victim “blurted out” that she did not really like Hart because “he does nasty things to me.” When pressed, the child said Hart had “peed on her butt,” “tried to get me to suck his . . . thing,” and then “took his thing and he put it in my butt. And he put my head in the pillow.” The mother testified that Hart’s mother never told her that the victim said anything about Hart molesting her, even though the two women spoke almost every day while the mother was in Korea.

The family went to Hart’s house and confronted him and his parents, and Hart responded that he “didn’t do it,” that he was always being blamed for things, and that he did not care if the victim’s mother called the police and reported the outcry. The police came to the house and took statements, and after they left, the mother’s boyfriend and Hart’s father got into a fight. The police returned and remained until the victim and her family cleared out of Hart’s house.

Hart v. State

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's objection to an expert witness's testimony that the victim's demeanor, disclosure and behavior were consistent with that of a child who had been sexually abused.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report