A Bartow County jury found James Michael Baughcum guilty of two counts of aggravated child molestation, OCGA § 16-6-4 c, and five counts of child molestation, OCGA § 16-6-4 a. Baughcum appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, contending the trial court erred in denying his request for a pre-trial hearing on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel and in denying his motion for a mistrial after the admission of improper character evidence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,1 the evidence shows that Baughcum repeatedly molested L. C., a girl he hired to babysit his children. L. C., who was thirteen years old when the sexual abuse began, testified that Baughcum kissed her, fondled her breasts and genitals, had sexual intercourse with her, orally sodomized her, and had her perform oral sex on him. L. C. testified that Baughcum molested her about 70 times during a period that extended from January of 2002 through the summer of 2002. Baughcum’s children, J. B. and A. B., who were then about seven and ten years old respectively, witnessed their father molest L. C. A. B. and outcry witnesses testified that Baughcum also molested A. B. on two occasions by inserting his finger into his child’s vagina. The State introduced into evidence the videotaped interview of A. B., which was played for the jury. The State also submitted the similar transaction testimony of J. K., Baughcum’s daughter from his first marriage, who testified that Baughcum orally sodomized her when she was about four years old.
1. Baughcum contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial when, on cross-examination, similar transaction witness J. K. testified that Baughcum had been in jail for failing to pay child support and had surrendered his parental rights to J. K. The information was volunteered by the witness during a line of questioning by the defense which was intended to demonstrate that J. K. had very little contact with her father during her childhood. Baughcum moved for a mistrial, but the court denied the motion, giving curative instructions instead. The court instructed the jury to disregard J. K.’s statements and asked whether any juror would be unable to do that. The jurors indicated they could comply with the court’s instruction. The court then had the jury step out while it admonished the witness to answer only the lawyer’s questions and not volunteer prejudicial information.
