Sandifer v. State

The State is not required to inform a defendant of the purpose for which it seeks to introduce similar transaction evidence in its notice of intent.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Darryl Lamar Sandifer was convicted on five counts of aggravated child molestation,1 four counts of child molestation,2 and two counts of enticing a child for indecent purposes.3 He now appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial, asserting that the court below erred in: 1 refusing to allow his sister to remain in the courtroom for the testimony of Sandifer’s two victims; and 2 allowing the State to introduce similar transaction evidence, even though its notice regarding those similar transactions failed to specify the exact purpose for which that evidence would be introduced. We find no error and affirm.

1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict,4 the record shows that Sandifer repeatedly molested two young boys over an approximately two year period. The boys were between the ages of six and ten when the abuse occurred, and they were aged nine and eleven at the time of Sandifer’s trial. At the request of the State and pursuant to OCGA § 17-8-545 , the trial court cleared the courtroom of spectators, other than the immediate family members of each of the victims, during the victims’ testimony. Among the spectators required to leave was Sandifer’s sister, with whom he resided. When the judge asked defense counsel if he had any objection to clearing the courtroom, Sandifer’s lawyer responded: “No, Your honor. My client brings a good point up. The other people that are being excluded from the courtroom are his family.” The judge responded: “Yeah. I know that, but that doesn’t change the fact that they need to leave.” Sandifer now contends that the trial court’s refusal to allow his sister to remain in the courtroom during the victims’ testimony violated both his constitutional right to a public trial and OCGA § 17-8-54. We find no reversible error.

Sandifer v. State

The State is not required to inform a defendant of the purpose for which it seeks to introduce similar transaction evidence in its notice of intent.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report