Cobb v. State
309 Ga. App. 70
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Cobb was charged with aggravated child molestation and child molestation counts regarding two children; jury acquitted on most counts but convicted on Count 2 (aggravated) and Count 5 (child molestation) with concurrent sentencing and recidivist status; conviction based on testimony of K.E. and corroborating witnesses; multiple defense and expert witnesses presented; first trial ended in mistrial, second trial in March 2009 where K.E. testified to abuse; trial court admitted extensive expert and lay testimony, forensic interviews, and other witnesses; Cobb raised sufficiency, evidentiary, cross-examination, and ineffective assistance claims on appeal; judgement affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Cobb argues the evidence is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | State contends there is sufficient, legally competent evidence supporting the verdict. | Evidence sufficient; K.E.'s testimony alone supports conviction. |
| Admission of expert testimony about coaching | Waived but argues Dr. Battle’s testimony about coaching cannot bolster credibility. | State contends testimony did not bolster credibility and was permissible. | No reversible error; not bolstering; waiver notwithstanding, admissible. |
| Cross-examination regarding suggestibility | Cobb was denied cross-examination of Dr. Battle about children's suggestibility; House v. State controls. | House distinguishes here; cross-examining expert about third-party abuse not allowed. | No reversible error; House applicable; cross-examination properly limited. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple claims) | Counsel failed to prepare Dr. Aldridge, failed to impeach Teresa, failed to seek rebuttal time, failed to object to improper closing argument, etc. | Strategic decisions and lack of prejudice negate ineffectiveness. | No reversible ineffectiveness; decisions reasonable; no prejudice shown. |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument about future danger and credibility | Cobb alleges improper future-dangerousness cue and improper credibility remarks. | State’s comments viewed in context as argument from the evidence; not reversible. | Any error not likely to contribute to verdict; harmless under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- House v. State, 236 Ga.App. 405, 512 S.E.2d 287 (1999) (Ga. App. 1999) (limits on cross-examining third-party abuse to prove learning; privacy and irrelevance concerns)
- Newman v. State, 286 Ga.App. 353, 649 S.E.2d 349 (2007) (Ga. App. 2007) (procedural precedent on appeal requirements and harmless error)
- Mason v. State, 274 Ga. 79, 548 S.E.2d 298 (2001) (Ga. 2001) (prosecutor's closing remarks and prejudice considerations)
- Williams v. State, 261 Ga.App. 511, 583 S.E.2d 172 (2003) (Ga. App. 2003) (prosecutor's future-dangerousness arguments; harmless in context)
- Mikell v. State, 281 Ga.App. 739, 637 S.E.2d 142 (2006) (Ga. App. 2006) (credibility and expert testimony considerations)
- Towry v. State, 304 Ga.App. 139, 695 S.E.2d 683 (2010) (Ga. App. 2010) (cumulative error standard; ineffective-assistance framework)