Clark v. State, 309 Ga. App. 749

Timothy Clark was convicted of aggravated child molestation, child molestation, and cruelty to children based on three victims aged 12, 10, and 4.
Evidence included Clark’s confession, victim and witness testimony, and corroborating investigative statements; the State’s case was largely corroborative of the confession.
Clark appealed, asserting five reversible trial errors affecting the fairness of the verdict.
Issue one concerned rehabilitation of jurors who voiced potential bias during voir dire but stated they could be fair.
Issue two involved the trial court's partial courtroom closure during the youngest victims’ testimony to protect them.
Issue five involved the admissibility of a redacted defense exhibit prepared by a deceased officer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror rehabilitation during voir dire	Clark asserts abuse of discretion in rehabilitating jurors who admitted potential bias.	State contends jurors could be rehabilitated and had no fixed opinions.	No abuse; jurors could be fair and impartial.
Courtroom closure during child testimony	Clark argues closure violated public-trial rights by excluding spectators.	State asserts closure was narrowly tailored to protect child witnesses and meets statutory exception.	No constitutional violation; permissible under statute and case law.
Admission of in-custody statement	Clark claims interrogation violated Miranda/inducement rules about leniency and promises.	State asserts the record shows no improper promises; statements sought help, not leniency.	Statement properly admitted; no coercive promises shown.
Scope of cross-examination re: aggravated charge	Clark seeks cross-examination about pre-interrogation charge disclosure and minimum sentence.	State contends warning about potential charges is not required and punishment evidence is inadmissible anyway.	No error; punishment evidence excluded to avoid improper jury bias.
Admission of defense exhibit unredacted	Clark contends the unreliability and hearsay nature of the redacted material warranted admission.	State argues officer’s report is double hearsay and not trustworthy; redactions were proper.	No abuse; court did not err in excluding double hearsay under necessity.

Park v. State, 260 Ga.App. 879, 581 S.E.2d 393 (2003) (impartial juror standard; voir dire rehabilitation)
Ros v. State, 279 Ga. 604, 619 S.E.2d 644 (2005) (impartial juror; showing lack of fixed opinions)
Delgado v. State, 287 Ga.App. 273, 651 S.E.2d 201 (2007) (partial courtroom closure in child-sex cases permissible)
Hunt v. State, 268 Ga.App. 568, 602 S.E.2d 312 (2004) (public-trial considerations and closures)
Rivers v. State, 265 Ga. 694, 461 S.E.2d 205 (1995) (limits on using punishment evidence at trial)
White v. State, 266 Ga. 134, 465 S.E.2d 277 (1996) (promise of benefit and voluntariness of confession; safety of statements)
Leigh v. State, 223 Ga.App. 726, 478 S.E.2d 905 (1996) (voluntariness of statements; help in court context)
Bazansilva v. State, 251 Ga.App. 608, 554 S.E.2d 794 (2001) (confession admissibility where charges not stated during interrogation)
Askea v. State, 153 Ga.App. 849, 267 S.E.2d 279 (1980) (inquiry into police promises; voluntariness standard)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (equivocal requests do not require cessation of questioning)
Perez v. State, 283 Ga. 196, 657 S.E.2d 846 (2008) (equivocal invocations of right to cut off questioning)
Harper v. State, 152 Ga.App. 689, 263 S.E.2d 547 (1979) (attachments and trustworthiness considerations in hearsay)