Brown v. State
321 Ga. App. 798
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Brown was convicted after a bench trial of attempted child molestation and computer child exploitation; he appeals the convictions.
- Evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State supported the convictions for attempted child molestation and computer child exploitation.
- Brown communicated with a purported 14-year-old girl via Craigslist and on-line messages, then traveled toward a Georgia meeting, planning sexual activity.
- Georgia had jurisdiction under OCGA § 17-2-1 because Brown took a substantial step toward the crime in Georgia and interacted with a Georgia recipient online.
- The court declined to merge the attempted child molestation conviction with the computer child exploitation conviction, applying the Drinkard v. Walker framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for attempted child molestation | State argues evidence showed a substantial step and intent. | Brown argues the evidence is insufficient to prove attempted child molestation. | Sufficient evidence; conviction affirmed. |
| Jurisdiction to prosecute | State contends jurisdiction existed under OCGA 17-2-1 because acts occurred partly in Georgia. | Brown argues lack of Georgia ties; not sufficiently connected to Georgia. | Georgia had jurisdiction to prosecute. |
| Merger of offenses for sentencing | State contends no merger; computer exploitation and attempt are separate offenses. | Brown contends mandatory merger. | No merger; offenses are separate under the required evidence test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Castaneira v. State, 321 Ga. App. 418 (2013) (evidence of online misconduct and meeting arrangements supports attempted child molestation)
- Logan v. State, 309 Ga. App. 95 (2011) (electronic communications and meeting plan support substantial step toward crime)
- Smith v. State, 306 Ga. App. 301 (2010) (online communications and pursuit of meeting support attempt)
- Dennard v. State, 243 Ga. App. 868 (2000) (absence of actual victim presence does not preclude conviction)
- Heard v. State, 317 Ga. App. 663 (2012) (insufficient evidence for certain enticement offenses)
- Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211 (2006) (guides merger analysis via required-evidence test)
- Thomas v. State, 292 Ga. 429 (2013) (applies Drinkard test to determine merger of offenses)
- Raftis v. State, 175 Ga. App. 893 (1985) (jurisdiction for conspiracy based on acts in Georgia)
- Patel v. State, 282 Ga. 412 (2007) (venue for online solicitation based on recipient's location)
- Selfe v. State, 290 Ga. App. 857 (2008) (venue/recipients in online exploitation cases)