Alexander v. State, 308 Ga. App. 245

Alexander was convicted by a jury of one count of sexual battery (as a lesser included offense of rape) and one count of child molestation.
The victim was a 13-year-old girl (P.H.) living with Cicely Holliday; the incident occurred September 3, 2005.
The defense denied the allegations; the defense characterized Alexander as a babysitter, not a rapist.
At trial, a GBI forensic biologist testified about potential penile penetration; no seminal fluid detected, but a vaginal abrasion suggested forceful penetration.
The trial court instructed the jury on the State’s burden and the availability of lesser included offenses; Alexander challenged the instruction as requiring conviction for rape or its lesser offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the jury charge improper for requiring conviction of rape or its lesser offenses?	Alexander argues the charge improperly limited verdicts.	State contends charge properly framed the offenses and the burden.	No reversible error; charge read as a whole properly conveyed the burden.
Did any error in referencing the reasonable doubt standard amount to substantial error?	Alexander claims the use of “believe” after the reasonable doubt instruction improperly lowered the burden.	State asserts no substantial error; references to belief were contextually tied to reasonable doubt.	No substantial error; charge as a whole was proper.

Ward v. State, 271 Ga. 62 (1999) (after reasonable doubt charge, court warned against lowering the standard to honest belief)
Jones v. State, 252 Ga.App. 332 (2001) (after reasonable doubt charge, improper simplification of burden; reversible error if relied upon)
Boone v. State, 250 Ga.App. 133 (2001) (‘believe’ used synonymously with reasonable doubt; best practice not followed)
Vergara v. State, 287 Ga. 194 (2010) (requires reviewing erroneous charges for harmful error; read in context)
Hambrick v. State, 256 Ga. 688 (1987) (harmful-error standard for erroneous charges)