Futch v. State
326 Ga. App. 394
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Reuben Amory Futch III was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of aggravated child molestation, child molestation, and enticing a child for indecent purposes; he does not challenge sufficiency of the evidence.
- On appeal Futch challenged: (1) denial of motions to strike three prospective jurors for cause, (2) two pretrial/in-trial rulings on motions in limine (religion-related testimony and prior sexual history/daycare touching), and (3) admission of his recorded police statement as involuntary.
- Jurors at issue: Juror 28 (personal exposure to child sexual abuse through family and military investigations), Juror 42 (acquaintance with defendant’s family and school witnesses), Juror 75 (attends same church as victim’s family). Trial court observed demeanor and denied strikes; defendant used peremptory strikes to remove them.
- Victim delayed outcry over two years; after baptism she believed she was forgiven and then told a teacher. Trial court admitted testimony linking delay to religious belief as explanation for late outcry.
- State’s witnesses described victim’s classroom self-stimulation; defense sought to introduce evidence that a daycare child once accidentally touched the victim as an alternate explanation. The trial court initially granted then later reversed its in limine exclusion and the daycare incident was introduced during trial; defense had opportunity to explore it but did not pursue recalls.
- At a Jackson-Denno hearing the interviewing GBI agent testified he gave Miranda warnings, Futch agreed to talk, and that the agent used some deceptive statements (false claims of corroborative evidence). The court found the statement voluntary and admitted the audio recording.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Futch) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying strikes for cause for three jurors | Jurors were not so biased as to be unable to follow law; demeanor supported qualification | Jurors’ personal connections/experiences created disqualifying bias requiring strikes | Denial affirmed; substantial deference to trial court demeanor findings; jurors could be impartial |
| Whether testimony about victim’s baptism/religious belief causing delayed outcry should be excluded | Testimony is relevant to explain delay and effect of abuse; not improper bolstering | Religion injects character/religion improperly and may unduly prejudice jury | Admissible: relevant to explain delayed outcry; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Whether testimony about prior sexual self-stimulation and daycare touching should be excluded | State sought exclusion as irrelevant past sexual history; court reserved ruling | Futch argued daycare incident was central alternative-cause defense and exclusion prevented defense | No reversible error: court ultimately allowed inquiry; defense had opportunities to elicit/introduce daycare evidence but declined to pursue further |
| Whether defendant’s recorded statement was involuntary due to deception and promises of help | Statement was voluntary; deceptive tactics that are not calculated to procure untruths are allowed; no promise of lesser punishment | Deception and the agent’s repeated offers to "help" induced confession and rendered it involuntary | Statement admissible: Miranda given; deception permissible where not producing untrue statements; no inducement by "hope of benefit" as defined by statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdullah v. State, 284 Ga. 399 (standards for striking jurors for cause)
- Beaudoin v. State, 311 Ga. App. 91 (prospective juror bias must be fixed to require strike)
- Harper v. Barge Air Conditioning, 313 Ga. App. 474 (when voir dire shows explicit bias, further inquiry required)
- Alford v. State, 320 Ga. App. 523 (relevance of victim’s explanation for delay and effect of abuse)
- Harris v. State, 274 Ga. 422 (police trickery does not automatically render confession inadmissible)
- Brown v. State, 290 Ga. 865 (meaning of "hope of benefit" in voluntariness analysis)
- Edenfield v. State, 293 Ga. 370 (standard of review for admissibility findings and recordings)