Dozier v. State
311 Ga. App. 713
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dozier was convicted by a jury of rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, child molestation, and incest, resulting in multiple life sentences.
- The victim was Dozier’s 14-year-old daughter who testified to repeated sexual assaults by Dozier.
- The assaults occurred at the victim’s home and other locations; Dozier sometimes took the victim from school and coerced her in the back of his car.
- The victim disclosed the abuse after fear of being believed or blamed, culminating in police reporting and prosecution.
- The State introduced a certified copy of Dozier’s prior aggravated assault conviction to impeach his testimony; Dozier challenged its admissibility under OCGA § 24-9-84.1.
- The trial court balanced probative value against prejudice and admitted the prior conviction; Dozier appealed arguing improper standard and abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court applied the proper standard for admitting an older conviction to impeach a defendant. | Dozier argues the court used a lower standard than required for defendants. | The State contends the stricter standard applies only to younger convictions; the ten-year rule balances the same for both. | No error; proper balancing under OCGA 24-9-84.1(b) given >10 years since release. |
| Whether the balancing factors and the court’s comments show misapplication of the standard. | Dozier contends the court’s remarks show misapplication of the threshold for older convictions. | The court correctly applied specific factors (kind of crime, date, credibility) per Quiroz. | No abuse of discretion; express findings and proper application of factors. |
| Whether the admissibility analysis requires a different standard for defendants versus witnesses. | Dozier claims older convictions against a defendant require stricter scrutiny than against a witness. | Statute does not distinguish; balancing uses same standard after ten years. | No distinction required; trial court applied appropriate standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quiroz v. State, 291 Ga.App. 423 (2008) (impeachment standard for credibility; relevance of age of conviction)
- Abercrombie v. State, 297 Ga.App. 522 (2009) (need explicit balancing factors; ten-year rule not enough alone)
- Lawrence v. State, 305 Ga.App. 199 (2010) (impeachment of witness remains probative value vs. prejudice; 10-year context)