Metts v. State

The state's re-indictment of the defendant on added and modified charges did not violate his due process rights, since jeopardy had not yet attached to the first indictment and the new indictment did not increase the severity of the charges against him.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This case arises out of allegations that Tyson Carmin Metts forced his girlfriend’s minor daughter to orally sodomize him several times over a three-year period. The jury found Metts guilty of aggravated child molestation, child molestation, and false imprisonment. The trial court denied his amended motion for new trial. On appeal, Metts contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him; that his due process rights were violated because the state acted with an improper motive in reindicting him; that the false imprisonment count of the indictment lacked the requisite specificity; that his false imprisonment and child molestation convictions should have been merged into his aggravated child molestation conviction; that his conviction and felony sentence for child molestation were improper based on the rule of lenity; that the.trial court erred by charging the jury on prior consistent statements; and that the trial court failed to properly recharge on false imprisonment in response to a question from the jury. Additionally, Metts contends that he was denied effective assistance from his trial counsel. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 1. Following a criminal conviction, a defendant is no longer presumed innocent, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. Neugent v. State , 294 Ga. 284 1 668 SE2d 888 2008. “We do not weigh the evidence or determine 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.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Id. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.

So viewed, the evidence showed that Metts was the boyfriend of the victim’s mother. He lived with the mother and her four minor children, including the victim, in an apartment and later in a house located in Fulton County. Metts often was home alone with the children while the mother was away at work.

Metts v. State

The state's re-indictment of the defendant on added and modified charges did not violate his due process rights, since jeopardy had not yet attached to the first indictment and the new indictment did not increase the severity of the charges against him.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report