Ledford v. State

The trial court properly considered the defendant's youth at the time of the similar transaction, his attempt to conceal his behavior by acting in secluded locations, and the nature of the acts he committed before concluding that the evidence was admissible.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury convicted Michael Lee Ledford on two counts of aggravated child molestation, two counts of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of child molestation. Ledford filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied, and he now appeals. Following our review, we affirm. The indictment charged Ledford with sexually assaulting his two stepdaughters on multiple occasions during the period May 1, 2007 and April 25, 2008. Both girls —B. D., who was eight years old at the time of the 2009 trial, and V. D., who was six years old —testified about the incidents upon which the charges were based. The State also introduced, pursuant to the Child Hearsay Statute, OCGA § 24-3-16, evidence of statements the two girls made to Upson County Sheriff’s Department Investigator Casey Clark, licensed pediatrician Dr. Kathy Mansfield, and forensic interviewer Ashley Wilson, who interviewed the girls as part of the State’s investigation into their allegations. In addition, the State presented testimony from Ledford’s eleven-year-old cousin, who said that when she was three or four, Ledford had touched her vagina with his hand and attempted to put his penis in her mouth. She said they were at their grandmother’s house, in Ledford’s room and the bathroom when this occurred. The cousin testified that Ledford was interrupted when his sister came into the bathroom, saw what was happening and alerted their mother, who “whipped” Ledford.1 The charges in this case included allegations, inter alia, that Ledford had engaged in similar behavior with his two stepdaughters, and the State proffered this similar transaction testimony for the limited purpose of establishing Ledford’s lustful disposition.

1. Ledford contends that the trial court erred in introducing the similar transaction evidence, which purportedly occurred when he was either eleven or twelve years old.2 He argues that evidence of his behavior as a child was irrelevant to any sexual activity he is alleged to have committed as an adult.

Ledford v. State

The trial court properly considered the defendant's youth at the time of the similar transaction, his attempt to conceal his behavior by acting in secluded locations, and the nature of the acts he committed before concluding that the evidence was admissible.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report