Adams v. State
312 Ga. App. 570
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Investigator Still posed as a 14-year-old online and targeted child predators; Adams contacted Savannah Patterson after she disclosed being 14.
- Adams used a webcam to show explicit material and discussed meeting Savannah for sexual activity; he warned her to keep it secret.
- A meeting was arranged at Unicoi State Park; Adams was arrested at a dock near the planned site with a black Ford truck and condoms in his possession.
- Police found a Charlotte: a computer, cameras, and a handwritten Savannah name/address on a receipt in Adams’s truck; Adams stated he lived in Florida during questioning and wrote a remorseful statement.
- Adams was charged with multiple crimes (Counts 1–7, 8–11) including criminal attempts to commit various offenses and CPCEA violations; the jury convicted on Counts 4–8 and acquitted/foregone others, with some counts nolled or mistrialed.
- The trial court granted new trials on Counts 5–7 but denied new trials for Counts 4 and 8; Adams appeals asserting OCGA § 17-8-57 violations, improper jury instructions, and sufficiency venue/evidence issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OCGA § 17-8-57 violation from judge’s comments during voir dire | Adams claims judge’s age comment on a juror’s Facebook knowledge violated 17-8-57. | Adams argues the remark affected disputed facts and credibility. | No reversible error; comments did not express opinions on proof or credibility. |
| OCGA § 17-8-57 violation from judge-counsel colloquy | Adams asserts judge improperly expanded scope on false-statement charge. | Judge’s remarks limited in scope and did not assess guilt or innocence. | No violation; comments aimed to ensure a fair trial and did not express an opinion on guilt. |
| Due process: jury instruction on Count 4 deviating from indictment | Adams contends instruction allowed conviction under unalleged manner. | There was evidence supporting the unalleged manner, but charge limited to indictment. | No reversible error; instructions, viewed with indictment, limited deliberations to alleged manner. |
| Sufficiency of evidence and venue for Count 4 | State failed to prove Adams drove to the meeting place in White County. | Venue may be based on where enticement occurred; location of arrest is immaterial. | Sufficiency and venue were established; venue proper in White County or where online enticement occurred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Logan v. State, 309 Ga. App. 95 (2011) (venue/elements standards; sufficiency review in GA appeals)
- Selfe v. State, 290 Ga. App. 857 (2008) (venue/online activity considerations; CPCEA context)
- Patel v. State, 282 Ga. 412 (2007) (venue for online/CPCEA-based offenses; permissive venue theories)
- Rogers v. State, 298 Ga. App. 895 (2009) (venue/where online or telephone-based offenses are 'committed' for venue purposes)
- Harwell v. State, 270 Ga. 765 (1999) (due process and jury instructions; standard of review for misinstruction)
- Machado v. State, 300 Ga. App. 459 (2009) (limits on trial court’s statements and evidentiary decisions; 17-8-57 scope)
- Searcy v. State, 168 Ga. App. 233 (1983) (general guidance on instruction-related error and indictment alignment)