Following his 2005 conviction for rape, James Arness Bell appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial. He contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior transaction for which he was acquitted, and erred in denying his motion for mistrial when prejudicial statements were made during voir dire. Upon our review, we reverse. On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the jury’s verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. Hall v. State , 292 Ga. App. 544, 545 664 SE2d 882 2008. We do not weigh the evidence or consider witness credibility, but only determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
So viewed, the evidence shows that in November of 2003, during a group counseling session at the Youth Detention Center YDC in Pelham, the then-fourteen-year-old victim made an outcry to her counselor that she had been raped. She described the details of the rape, and named Bell as the person who raped her. The matter was referred to the Department of Family and Children Services, who thereafter contacted law enforcement agencies. An investigator with the GBI interviewed the victim who told the officer that the rape occurred in late August of 2003. She stated that she was approached by Bell as she walked home from a friend’s house at approximately 11 o’clock p.m. When she rebuked his attention, Bell grabbed her by the shirt and told her to come with him. He took her to an abandoned house, and when she refused to take her clothes off, struck her several times. Bell removed her pants and underwear and raped the victim. Bell told the victim that if she told anyone about the rape, he would kill her or her family. She told the investigator that she did not tell anyone until November because she was afraid, and believed that she was safe inside the YDC because Bell could not get to her.