Algren v. the State
330 Ga. App. 1
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Todd Algren, a scuba instructor, was indicted for statutory rape (sexual intercourse with 14-year-old S.H.) and separately for two counts of child molestation (touching 9-year-old K.R.).
- The State moved to join the two indictments; the trial court granted joinder and all charges were tried together.
- At trial the jury convicted Algren of statutory rape but acquitted him on both child-molestation counts.
- After conviction, the court sentenced Algren to a 20-year term (ten years to serve). Algren moved for a new trial and appealed from the conviction and denial of his motion.
- On appeal Algren raised four principal challenges: (1) improper joinder of indictments; (2) trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on similar-transaction evidence; (3) error in instructing that a child under 16 cannot consent; and (4) sentencing as felony statutory rape without jury finding on ages (Apprendi challenge).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Algren) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by joining two indictments for trial | Joinder appropriate because offenses were similar and would have been admissible as similar-transaction evidence | Joinder prejudiced Algren; he had an absolute right to sever when charges are only similar in character | No abuse of discretion — offenses were simple, jury could distinguish evidence, and offenses were admissible as similar-transaction evidence if tried separately; acquittals show no confusion |
| Whether failure to charge jury on similar-transaction evidence was error | No explicit argument — State tried the molestation counts as separate charges | Court should have instructed on similar-transaction rules after joinder | No plain error — the molestation allegations were charged and tried as separate offenses, not admitted as similar-transaction evidence, so such an instruction would have been inapplicable |
| Whether instruction that a child under 16 cannot consent violated OCGA § 24-4-412(b) (rape-shield exceptions) | Consent of victim is relevant under rape-shield statute and exceptions permit proof the defendant reasonably believed victim consented | Instruction correctly stated law: minors under 16 lack legal capacity to consent; rape-shield exception for prior sexual behavior only applies to prior acts with the defendant and cannot override criminal statutes | No plain error — statutory-rape consent is legally irrelevant for under-16 victims; rape-shield text does not permit undercutting the criminal-code prohibition |
| Whether sentencing as felony (over misdemeanor range) violated Apprendi without jury finding as to ages | Apprendi requires jury find any fact increasing max sentence beyond statutory baseline | The misdemeanor provision in OCGA § 16-6-3(c) is a mitigating exception; Apprendi does not require jury to find mitigating facts that would lower punishment | No error — subsection (c) creates mitigating factors; indictment and trial evidence established victim’s age and defendant’s age, supporting felony sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. State, 277 Ga. 138 (Ga. 2003) (defendant has absolute right to sever when charges joined solely because they are of same or similar character)
- Heck v. State, 313 Ga. App. 571 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (similar-transaction evidence and severance analysis; discretion to deny severance when evidence admissible between offenses)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing maximum penalty must be submitted to a jury, but does not require jury to find mitigating facts that reduce punishment)
- Osborne v. State, 291 Ga. App. 711 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (rape-shield exceptions inapplicable when complaining witness lacks legal capacity to consent)
- Kolar v. State, 292 Ga. App. 623 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (statutory-rape subsection creating misdemeanor is a mitigating provision; jury need not find mitigating facts under Apprendi)