Chandler v. State
309 Ga. App. 611
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Chandler was convicted by a Barrow County jury of child molestation (OCGA § 16-6-4 (a)) and cruelty to children (OCGA § 16-5-70 (b)).
- The convictions arose from May 18, 2002, events involving Chandler and his 12-year-old grandnephew, D. J., including an attempted rape and assault on D. J.'s person.
- D. J. reported the incident to his mother, who found Chandler in the home; D. J. called police and a doctor collected seminal fluid from D. J.'s anal area.
- Investig investigators obtained statements from D. J. and family witnesses; DNA testing was not conducted on the seminal fluid.
- Chandler argued prosecutorial misconduct, trial court errors, and ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion for new trial.
- The court denied relief and affirmed the convictions on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct withholding statement | Chandler alleges prosecutor withheld a recantation. | State contends no misconduct; no Brady violation. | No reversible error; no Brady violation proven. |
| Alternate juror presence during deliberations | Chandler argues error requiring harm presumption. | Defense waived by consent to presence. | Waiver; no demonstrated prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim fails. |
| Merger of offenses for same conduct | Chandler seeks merger of child molestation and cruelty. | No merger under required evidence test. | Offenses do not merge; each requires a distinct element. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to object to merger and misconduct rulings, and to alternate juror issue. | Counsel’s performance was not deficient or prejudicial. | No ineffective assistance; objections would be meritless; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgess v. State, 276 Ga. 185 (2003) (disclosure duties under OCGA § 17-16-7 not required for unrecorded statements)
- Henley v. State, 285 Ga. 500 (2009) (Brady standard with four-part test for favorable evidence)
- Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848 (2005) (Brady analysis applied to undisclosed evidence)
- Dodd v. State, 293 Ga. App. 816 (2008) (Brady: exculpatory evidence presented to jury may satisfy requirement)
- London v. State, 260 Ga. App. 780 (2003) (waiver when defense agrees to alternate juror presence; no harm presumption)
- Waits v. State, 282 Ga. 1 (2007) (merger analysis under OOGA; crimes may not merge if each requires additional element)
- Morgan v. State, 275 Ga. 222 (2002) (burden on defendant to show prejudice in ineffective-assistance claim)
- Hayes v. State, 262 Ga. 881 (1993) (meritless objections cannot support ineffective assistance)
- Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211 (2006) (adopted required-evidence test for inclusion offenses)
- Meredith v. State, 211 Ga. App. 213 (1993) (serious charge of misconduct requires proof by record and authority)