Rawls v. State

The trial court did not violate O.C.G.A. § 17-8-57 by questioning a witness regarding venue, as the colloquy at issue merely involved questions about the locations of events and did not refer to whether venue had been proved.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Julius Rawls appeals his conviction of aggravated assault with intent to rape,1 aggravated sexual battery,2 and child molestation,3 contending that the trial court erred by 1 denying his motion in limine concerning evidence that he had been drinking alcohol, 2 asking a witness questions proving venue, 3 denying his motion for a directed verdict as to the aggravated assault charge, and 4 denying his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Construed in favor of the verdict,4 the evidence shows that in May 2003, Rawls appeared at his ten-year-old daughter’s school to pick her up before the regular dismissal time. The school secretary called for the daughter, D. R., on the intercom and, as she spoke to Rawls, noticed that he smelled of alcohol. When D. R. arrived and saw her father waiting, she immediately grew afraid and began crying. The secretary called the school counselor, who noticed D. R.’s fearful demeanor and called her back to the office as she and Rawls were walking out. Rawls kept walking and left the school property without waiting for D. R. or speaking to school staff. Upon questioning, D. R. disclosed that her father had sexually abused her, and the counselor escorted D. R. to her grandmother’s residence, which was in the same apartment complex as her father, across the street from the school.

The Department of Family and Children Services was notified of the outcry, and D. R. was removed from her home and interviewed by a forensic specialist at a child advocacy center. D. R. explained that her father sometimes picked her up from school early and brought her home where he forced her to disrobe, he touched her breasts and fondled her vagina, and on at least one occasion he forcibly attempted to have intercourse with her, but she had been able to push him off of her.

Rawls v. State

The trial court did not violate O.C.G.A. § 17-8-57 by questioning a witness regarding venue, as the colloquy at issue merely involved questions about the locations of events and did not refer to whether venue had been proved.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report