Richardson v. State

Application of Georgia's rape-shield statute to irrelevant evidence about the victim's relationship with her ex-boyfriend did not violate the defendant's confrontation right.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A Carroll County jury convicted Terry Wayne Richardson of kidnapping with bodily injury, OCGA § 16-5-40, and rape, OCGA § 16-6-1. Following the grant of an out-of-time appeal,1 Richardson appeals his conviction, contending the trial court violated his right to confront the witnesses against him and improperly admitted evidence of bad character. Richardson also challenges the constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence imposed for the kidnapping with bodily injury conviction. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,2 the evidence showed the following: On November 29, 1995, the day after breaking up with her boyfriend, the victim set out on a six to seven mile walk to the man’s residence to return his “starter” jacket and to retrieve some of her belongings. Along the way, the victim accepted a ride from Richardson, who was a stranger to her. As he drove, Richardson put his hand on the victim’s leg and asked what he was going to get in return for the ride. Richardson ignored the victim’s request to let her out when they neared her destination. Richardson drove to a remote wooded area and demanded sex in return for the ride. Richardson briefly choked the victim. In fear for her life, the victim submitted to intercourse. During the assault, the jacket was stained with menstrual blood and semen. The victim left the area on foot and accepted a ride from a passerby. After arriving at her original destination, the victim reported the crime. Richardson initially denied any involvement with the victim; at trial, however, he admitted the intercourse but testified that it was consensual.

Richardson v. State

Application of Georgia's rape-shield statute to irrelevant evidence about the victim's relationship with her ex-boyfriend did not violate the defendant's confrontation right.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report