Davis v. The State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing State to present evidence that defendant had previously infected another a person with HIV in his trial for two counts of reckless conduct in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-5-60 subsection (c) arising after he infected another with HIV.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Self, Judge.Craig Davis appeals from his convictions of two counts of reckless conduct in violation of OCGA § 16-5-60 (c), contending (1) that the trial court erred by allowing evidence that he had previously infected another a person with HIV, rather than admitting only his previous nondisclosure of his HIV status, and (2) that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by submitting expert witnesses who opined about the validity of HIV testing. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.

Davis’s Knowledge of His HIV Status. The State presented evidence showing that on March 18, 2005, Davis was admitted into the hospital from the emergency room after he complained of coughing, shortness of breath, weakness, and unexplained weight loss. The doctor who treated Davis testified that he had a type of pneumonia associated with the opportunistic infections typically seen in AIDS patients. Davis also suffered from thrush, another opportunistic infection associated with immune-compromised patients.The doctor explained that the HIV virus destroys the immune system as it grows inside the body by “eat[ing] up . . . CD4 cells.” When a person’s CD4 cell count is less than 200, a patient is diagnosed with AIDS.[1] A patient with AIDS is also considered HIV positive. At the time of Davis’s hospital admission, his CD4 count was 36. The doctor ordered an HIV/EIA[2] screen and a Western Blot test.[3] Both HIV tests were positive, and the doctor diagnosed Davis with “full blown AIDS.”

Davis v. The State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing State to present evidence that defendant had previously infected another a person with HIV in his trial for two counts of reckless conduct in violation of O.C.G.A. 16-5-60 subsection (c) arising after he infected another with HIV.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report