Chandler v. State
710 S.E.2d 826
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Barrow County jury convicted Chandler of child molestation (OCGA 16-6-4(a)) and cruelty to children (OCGA 16-5-70(b)).
- Offense occurred on May 18, 2002; the victim was D.J., 12-year-old grandnephew; incident involved attempted anal intercourse while Chandler was intoxicated.
- D.J. reported to his mother and was interviewed by police; a doctor recovered seminal fluid from D.J.'s anal area but no sperm cells, so no DNA testing.
- Chandler gave inconsistent statements to hospital personnel about his sexual history and interactions with D.J.; defense claimed D.J. lied.
- Prosecution and defense anticipated testimony on whether D.J. lied; the defense introduced witnesses (D.J.’s mother and grandmother) who testified D.J. lied.
- Chandler appeals asserting prosecutorial misconduct, trial court errors, and ineffective assistance of counsel; the court affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct/Brady violation | Chandler contends the prosecutor withheld a recantation by D.J.'s mother. | State asserts no misconduct; no obligation to disclose unrecorded oral statements. | No Brady violation; no withholding of favorable material; mistrial denied. |
| Alternate juror presence during deliberations | Defense argues presence violated OCGA 15-12-171 and harmed Chandler. | Defense consented to the alternate juror; error waived. | Waived; no showing of prejudice; no reversal for ineffective assistance. |
| Merger of convictions for child molestation and cruelty to children | Rule that offenses may merge if included under the same conduct. | Under the required evidence test, crimes do not merge if each requires an element the other does not. | Convictions do not merge; each offense requires a distinct element. |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel | Counsel failed to object to merger and prosecutorial misconduct; failed to object to alternate juror. | Counsel’s actions were strategic; objections would be meritless. | No deficient performance or prejudice; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgess v. State, 276 Ga. 185, 576 S.E.2d 863 (2003) (duty to disclose favorable evidence; Brady standard guidance)
- Henley v. State, 285 Ga. 500, 678 S.E.2d 884 (2009) (Brady materiality and suppression analysis)
- Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 621 S.E.2d 726 (2005) (Brady framework applicability to discovery of exculpatory material)
- Dodd v. State, 293 Ga.App. 816, 668 S.E.2d 311 (2008) (Brady violation not present when defense evidence is presented at trial)
- London v. State, 260 Ga.App. 780, 580 S.E.2d 686 (2003) (waiver of error when defense consents to alternate juror presence; harm presumption not applicable)