Patel v. State

The defendant was entitled to a mistrial, after the trial court improperly expressed its opinion during defense counsel's opening that the state had established venue in Fayette county.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Mahesh Patel was convicted on two counts of violating subsection d 1 of the Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1999, OCGA § 16-12-100.2 utilizing a computer on-line service to solicit a person believed to be a child to commit acts of sodomy and one count of violating subsection e 1 of that statute obscene Internet contact. The appeal is before this Court because of Patel’s unsuccessful challenge to the constitutionality of the Act. However, we do not reach that issue1 because we agree with Patel that the trial court’s violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 prohibiting a judge from expressing or suggesting an opinion regarding what has or has not been established entitles Patel to a new trial. 1. The jury was authorized to find that appellant, while at his business in Cherokee County, used his computer to enter an adult chat room where he struck up a conversation with a participant who claimed to be a thirteen-year-old girl but who was actually 29-year-old Cpl. Heather Lackey of the Peachtree City Police Department. During their private chat using an Internet instant messaging service, Lackey repeatedly told appellant that she was thirteen years old; appellant acknowledged this information. Appellant nevertheless utilized computer on-line services in Fayette County to solicit from Lackey acts of fellatio and cunnilingus. During the course of their on-line contact he also transmitted messages containing sexually explicit photographs to Lackey in Fayette County.

The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating subsections d 1 and e 1 of OCGA § 16-12-100.2 as charged. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.

Patel v. State

The defendant was entitled to a mistrial, after the trial court improperly expressed its opinion during defense counsel's opening that the state had established venue in Fayette county.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report