Yotthachai Kerdpoka was convicted of child molestation, and he appeals. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. Rather, he challenges rulings of the trial court regarding voir dire, the admission of character evidence, the scope of cross-examination, and prejudicial remarks by a juror; he also contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Construed in favor of the verdict, the evidence shows that Phil and Phoebe Hughes employed a Thai housekeeper named Nitaya Meebamroong for 14 years. Meebamroong’s son —the appellant —came to the United States in 1999 followed by his then seven-year-old daughter in 2001. Kerdpoka worked for Mr. Hughes at his car dealership in Athens, and the child became close with the Hughes family. In February 2006, the child, who was then age 12, told Mrs. Hughes that she had pain in her private parts, which eventually led Mrs. Hughes to take her to Dr. Rachel Murthy, a gynecologist. While at Dr. Murthy’s office, the child told Mrs. Hughes that her father had “been doing bad things to her,” including having sex with her. Although the child gave inconsistent information to the doctor, at one point she told Murthy that she had been touched inappropriately in the genital region, including finger and penile penetration. The child was also found to have Herpes antibodies, a sign of infection. At trial, the child testified that her father had touched her inappropriately for years; that he had sexual intercourse with her in the past; that in February 2006, he touched her private part and had sex with her; and that he later came to her school and told her not to tell anyone. A witness who discussed the matter with Kerdpoka when the incident came to light testified that Kerdpoka said, “I stupid”; and Mr. Hughes testified that Kerdpoka said, “I did it.” Thus, although not challenged, we find this evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of child molestation.
1. Kerdpoka contends the trial court erred by denying his request for sequestered voir dire. Prior to jury selection, Kerdpoka’s counsel moved that the voir dire be sequestered, that is, that he be allowed to question the jurors individually, out of the presence of the other jurors. The Code provides that in criminal cases, the prosecution and the defense “shall have the right to an individual examination of each prospective juror from which the jury is to be selected prior to interposing a challenge.” OCGA § 15-12-133. But that Code section grants only “the right to an individual response, not to an individual question,” and “it does not mandate sequestered voir dire.” Hodo v. State , 272 Ga. 272, 273 2 a 528 SE2d 250 2000. Defendants who desire sequestered individual examination of members of the jury panel must make a request, which is subject to the discretion of the trial court. Id. And “a showing of prejudice from denial is necessary to show an abuse of discretion. Cits.” Id.
