Alday v. the State
336 Ga. App. 508
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Faron Alday, grandfather of victim L.A., was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of child molestation for touching L.A.’s vaginal area and buttocks.
- Incident observed June 28, 2012: L.A.’s father entered Alday’s home, saw Alday and six‑year‑old L.A. on a couch, Alday jumped up; L.A. cried and told her father she didn’t want Alday to go to jail and acknowledged he had touched her.
- Forensic interview a week later: L.A. initially denied being touched four times but later said Alday had “massaged” her vaginal area and touched her buttocks; at trial L.A. testified Alday massaged her “girl’s part” but not her “booty.”
- Prosecution’s case relied largely on L.A.’s statements and the forensic interviewer’s testimony; defense sought to show the interview was unreliable and cross‑examined the forensic interviewer.
- During cross‑examination the trial judge made several interjections that the Court of Appeals found could be interpreted as expressing his opinion on witness credibility and what had been proven, violating OCGA § 17‑8‑57; convictions were reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Alday's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support convictions | Evidence insufficient / credibility issues | Evidence (child’s statements, interview, father’s testimony) supports convictions | Sufficient evidence to support convictions; jury could resolve credibility |
| Whether trial judge violated OCGA § 17‑8‑57 by intimating opinions | Judge’s comments during trial improperly expressed opinion and influenced jury | Some comments were harmless or occurred outside jury’s presence | Judge’s on‑the‑record comments during cross‑examination improperly intimated opinion; reversible error requiring new trial |
| Admissibility of evidence of prior feuds between Alday and victim’s father | Such evidence was relevant to bias and should have been admitted | Exclusion proper or harmless | Claim not reviewable because Alday failed to proffer expected testimony on the record |
| Whether other claimed errors require review given reversal | Errors affected outcome | Issues moot if retrial ordered | Court did not reach remaining claims as moot or unlikely to recur on retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State, 291 Ga. 287 (retrial permitted despite trial error)
- Williams v. State, 268 Ga. 488 (standard for retrial after reversible error)
- Murphy v. State, 290 Ga. 459 (judge’s comments on witness credibility violate OCGA § 17‑8‑57)
- Huff v. State, 334 Ga. App. 254 (comments expressing opinion on witness credibility improper)
- Phillips v. State, 275 Ga. 595 (courts must avoid prejudicial comments even outside jury’s presence)
- Miceli v. State, 308 Ga. App. 225 (requirement to proffer excluded evidence to preserve claim)