Brown v. State
310 Ga. App. 835
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Brown was convicted of rape, statutory rape, aggravated sexual battery, aggravated child molestation, and aggravated sodomy stemming from an incident with his 14-year-old cousin M.B. at her home after a park visit on May 30, 2004.
- M.B. reported the assault to her mother and later to an Examining Nurse at a hospital; the Nurse testified, including observations of bruising in the clitoral area.
- Brown objected to the Nurse’s testimony as hearsay bolstering credibility, which the trial court overruled in favor of a limiting instruction.
- The limiting instruction stated the Nurse’s testimony was not offered to prove the truth of what M.B. reported to the nurse.
- Brown’s trial strategy focused on attacking M.B.’s credibility, including cross-examination and closing arguments that her statements were fabricated.
- On appeal, Brown argued improper admission of the Nurse’s hearsay and that the issue was not preserved; the State argued the objection was not preserved under Sumlin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of objection to Nurse's testimony | Brown preserved error by timely objection. | State contends waiver under Sumlin due to lack of renewal after limiting instruction. | Objection timely preserved; trial court erred in ruling waiver. |
| Admissibility of Examining Nurse’s hearsay | Nurse’s statements identifying Brown outside medical-diagnosis scope were inadmissible hearsay. | Statements within medical-diagnosis/treatment exception permitted; pretrial credibility issues allowed. | Admission not erroneous; within chosen exception and defense context; or harmless with limiting instruction. |
| Impact of limiting instruction | Limitations could not cure erroneous admission. | Limiting instruction mitigates potential harm. | Limitation instructions cured potential error; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Head v. CSX Transp., 259 Ga.App. 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (preservation requires timely objection or motion; waives if silent)
- Whitehead v. State, 287 Ga. 242 (Ga. 2010) (timely objection required to preserve evidentiary error; limiting instruction does not erase preservation)
- Sumlin v. State, 283 Ga. 264 (Ga. 2008) (renewal of objection after limiting instruction not required in all contexts; distinguish with mistrial rule)
- O'Neal v. State, 288 Ga. 219 (Ga. 2010) (harm as well as error required for reversal)
- Tuff v. State, 278 Ga. 91 (Ga. 2004) (prior consistent statements admissible to rebut recent fabrication under conditions)
- Dorsey v. State, 252 Ga.App. 33 (Ga. App. 2001) (admission grounded in credibility attack strategy aligns with prior consistent statement use)
- Bell v. State, 294 Ga. App. 779 (Ga. App. 2008) (Child Hearsay Statute limitations; relevance to 14-year-old victim)
- Miller v. State, 194 Ga.App. 533 (Ga. App. 1990) (limits on admissibility of statements outside medical scope)