Curry v. the State
330 Ga. App. 610
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Darryl Curry was convicted after a jury trial of multiple counts including trafficking persons for sexual servitude, pimping of persons under 18, sexual exploitation of children, false imprisonment, cruelty to children, simple battery, and obstruction of an officer. Several counts were dismissed or resulted in acquittal at trial; convictions on the remaining charges were appealed.
- Victims A.E. and S.S., both minors at relevant times, testified that Curry controlled them, set prices, collected earnings, provided drugs/alcohol, prevented them from leaving, and sold them for sex; one victim escaped after being sexually assaulted and police later found Curry and S.S. in his home.
- The State sought to admit testimony from a third woman, L.B., about prior similar acts (being forced into prostitution by Curry at age 17). Curry moved in limine to exclude that testimony under OCGA § 24-4-404(b).
- Trial court admitted L.B.’s similar-transaction testimony as probative of intent, motive, plan, and identity, finding probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; Curry objected and appealed that ruling.
- Curry also objected to the jury instruction on false imprisonment because the court instructed that unlawful detention includes when a victim’s will is overborne by fear of defendant causing harm, arguing that allowed conviction on a manner not alleged in the indictment; the court had read the statutory definition but also instructed that the State must prove every material allegation beyond a reasonable doubt and sent the indictment with the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of similar-transaction evidence (OCGA §24-4-404(b)) | State: L.B.’s testimony is admissible to prove intent, motive, plan, identity; proper notice given | Curry: Evidence is propensity evidence, unduly prejudicial and not necessary to prove intent because intent not disputed | Affirmed — court applied three-part 404(b)/Eleventh Circuit test (relevance to non-character issue, sufficient proof by preponderance, 403 balancing) and found evidence admissible to show intent; differences between acts did not bar admission |
| Jury instruction on false imprisonment | State: statutory definition appropriate; overall charge and sending indictment to jury cured any variance | Curry: Instruction expanded manner of committing offense (detention by overborne will via fear) beyond grand jury allegation, violating due process | Affirmed — charge viewed as a whole; reading of statutory definition did not create reversible error because court also instructed State must prove each material allegation beyond reasonable doubt and sent the indictment with the jury, curing any potential defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 326 Ga. App. 658 (Ga. Ct. App.) (standard of review and 404(b) framework under Georgia Evidence Code)
- United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (articulates three-part test for admissibility of other-acts evidence under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Lamons, 532 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir.) (discusses Rule 403 probative vs. prejudicial balancing)
- Hall v. Wheeling, 282 Ga. 86 (Ga.) (due process concern when jury charge defines crime more broadly than the indictment)
- Wheeler v. State, 327 Ga. App. 313 (Ga. Ct. App.) (holding that reading indictment, instructing burden to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and sending indictment out can cure possible variance in jury charge)