Anthony L. Hubert appeals from his conviction on incest and four counts of child molestation. Hubert challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. He argues that the trial court erred by forcing him to decide whether to withdraw his speedy trial demand or proceed to trial on the day that his case was called; by admitting a state’s witness as an expert in forensic child interviews over his objection; and by ordering his trial counsel to move for directed verdict prior to the close of the state’s case. Hubert further contends that the trial court’s conduct during the trial indicated an undue bias against the defense and that he was denied the right to a fair trial due to juror misconduct. Finally, in several enumerations of error, Hubert asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no error and affirm. On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. Sullivan v. State , 295 Ga. App. 145 671 SE2d 180 2008. So viewed, the evidence presented at trial showed that Hubert is the father of the two victims, S. H. and Sh. H. In July 2006, S. H., then fourteen years old, revealed to her dance teacher that Hubert had been sexually molesting her. Sh. H., then thirteen years old, was present during her sister’s outcry and told the dance teacher that she had also been sexually molested by Hubert. After discovering that the girls had not told their mother about Hubert and were reluctant to do so, the dance teacher encouraged S. H. to write a letter detailing the abuse and suggested that they give it to her mother together. Approximately a week and a half later, the dance teacher met with the girls and their mother, at which time S. H. presented her mother with the letter. The mother contacted law enforcement and an investigation ensued.
S. H. revealed in a recorded police interview, and later testified at trial, that Hubert started committing sexual acts against her when she was seven years old and he continued to do so until she was twelve years old. The abuse occurred in their family home and consisted of inappropriate touching and sexual intercourse. A video recording of the interview was played for the jury.
