country-regionplaceCityDavisv. State

The trial court did not err in permitting the victim's mother's testimony over the defendant's bolstering objection, because the Child Hearsay Statute contemplates testimony from both the child and those witnessing the child's reaction.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A country-regioncountry-regionplacePlaceNameClaytoncountry-regionPlaceNameCountyjury found Lorenzo Davis guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of statutory rape, OCGA § 16-6-3 a Count 1; and child molestation, OCGA § 16-6-4 a 1 Count 2. The trial court determined that the offenses merged and imposed sentence on the charge of statutory rape. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, country-regionplaceCityDavisappeals, challenging the trial court’s rejection of his general demurrer to the indictment and several evidentiary rulings. Finding no error, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,1 the evidence shows the following. On November 20, 2006, country-regionplaceCityDaviswent into the room where the victim his 13-year-old step-daughter and her two brothers were sleeping, pulled the victim’s pants down, and then had sexual intercourse with her. In early January 2007, the victim’s mother, Malorie Jackson, learned that the victim was pregnant; the victim told her that country-regionplaceCityDavishad had intercourse with her. When country-regionCityJacksonquestioned country-regionplaceCityDavishe admitted the “mistake” and urged his wife to “think of it as the baby they never had” together. The victim later miscarried the fetus. Genetic testing of the fetus confirmed country-regionplaceCityDavis’s paternity.

Just before jury selection began, country-regionCityDavisorally demurred to Count 2 of the indictment on the basis that Count 2 failed to identify the perpetrator of the offense of child molestation.2 The trial court denied country-regionCityDavisdemurrer, and the trial against country-regionplaceCityDavisproceeded to a verdict.

country-regionplaceCityDavisv. State

The trial court did not err in permitting the victim's mother's testimony over the defendant's bolstering objection, because the Child Hearsay Statute contemplates testimony from both the child and those witnessing the child's reaction.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report