Collins v. State

Any error in the trial court admitting testimony that the defendant was the victim's first sexual partner was harmless, as it was cumulative of the victim's other testimony regarding this same fact, to which the defendant did not object.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Eugene Collins was convicted of six counts of child molestation OCGA § 16-6-4 a and three counts of aggravated child molestation OCGA § 16-6-4 c. On appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial, Collins contends that the trial court i erred in admitting testimony that violated the provisions of the rape shield statute, OCGA § 24-2-3; ii erred in admitting similar transaction evidence of his prior 1989 conviction for aggravated child molestation; iii erred in denying his motion for a mistrial; and iv erred in allowing the State to ask improper voir dire questions. He also contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to the similar transaction evidence on the basis of its lack of similarity and its prejudicial impact. We discern no error and affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979, the trial evidence shows that Collins was the step-father of the female victim, J. H. Collins married J. H.’s mother in March 2002 and lived in the family residence.

J. H. testified that at some point, when she was between 12 and 13 years old, Collins began molesting her. J. H. stated that one morning after her mother went to work, Collins entered her bedroom and started fondling her breasts and vagina. Collins then pulled down J. H.’s pants, unzipped his own pants, and inserted his penis into J. H.’s vagina. Collins held J. H.’s legs open while he had sexual intercourse with her, which J. H. described as being painful since she “wasn’t used to it” and it was “her first time.”

Collins v. State

Any error in the trial court admitting testimony that the defendant was the victim's first sexual partner was harmless, as it was cumulative of the victim's other testimony regarding this same fact, to which the defendant did not object.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report