Baker v. State
316 Ga. App. 122
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Baker appeals the denial of his motion for new trial following conviction for statutory rape; he was acquitted on interstate interference with child custody and battery.
- Victim, a 14-year-old Florida resident, met Baker online; Baker, age 29, transported her from Florida to Georgia and engaged in sexual intercourse on multiple visits.
- On a subsequent visit, a dispute led to a confrontation; the victim alleged violence and Baker sustained a minor injury.
- The victim reported the incident in a 911 call; officers observed bruising on her neck and a laceration on Baker’s forearm.
- Prior to trial, the State moved in limine to bar evidence about the victim’s age or her deceit about age; the trial court admitted and excluded related impeachment as to specific counts; Baker was convicted on Count 1 and acquitted on Count 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether age-deception evidence was admissible for Count 2 | Baker argues the evidence was relevant to Count 2 (interstate custody) | Baker contends the evidence was admissible to show victim’s deceit about age | No reversible error; no harm shown; evidence admissible under res gestae in context of Count 2. |
| Whether the court erred in not instructing mistake of fact for Count 2 | Baker claims error from omission of OCGA 16-3-5 | Instruction moot due to acquittal on Count 2 | Moot; no error given acquittal on Count 2. |
| Whether the court’s response to deliberations about age was error | Baker asserts error in limiting instructions about age relevance | Knowledge of age not relevant to Count 1 or 2 | Moot; correct as to Count 1; no reversible error. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not severing Counts 1 and 2 | Counsel should have severed to prevent prejudicial spillover | No showing of prejudice; separation not required | No reversible error; no prejudice shown. |
| Whether errors related to the 911 transcript/recording plus counsel conduct require reversal | Unauthenticated transcripts admitted; potential limits error; ineffective assistance claim | Procedure authorized by Turner v. State; transcript not evidence | No error; established protocol followed; no ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Horner v. State, 257 Ga. App. 12 (Ga. App. 2002) (res gestae admissibility in crime trials)
- Sypho v. State, 175 Ga. App. 833 (Ga. App. 1985) (admissibility of surrounding circumstances in main transaction)
- Turner v. State, 245 Ga. App. 476 (Ga. App. 2000) (approved use of transcript-aided listening with cautionary instruction)
- Washington v. State, 268 Ga. 598 (Ga. 1997) (transcript as aid, not evidence)
- Haywood v. State, 283 Ga. App. 568 (Ga. App. 2007) (age/deception evidence not relevant to statutory rape)
- Johnson v. State, 257 Ga. 731 (Ga. 1988) (severance and related admissibility rationale)
- Suggs v. State, 272 Ga. 85 (Ga. 2000) (standard for evaluating ineffective assistance)
- Gaston v. State, 180 Ga. App. 470 (Ga. App. 1986) (transcript not admitted into evidence; proper limiting instruction)