Goulding v. the State
334 Ga. App. 349
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Jonathan Goulding was convicted by a jury of two counts each of cruelty to children, aggravated assault, and aggravated battery after his three‑month‑old son sustained injuries diagnosed as abusive head trauma/shaken baby syndrome.
- Medical evidence showed old and new subdural hemorrhages, retinal hemorrhages, healing rib fractures, anemia, and brain swelling; experts concluded injuries were caused by acute and chronic abusive trauma and that the catastrophic injury occurred immediately before the April 9, 2008 collapse.
- Before and after videos of the child were available; the State moved to admit a “day‑in‑the‑life” video of the severely impaired child at 19 months to show the nature and extent of injuries.
- During voir dire Juror 9 expressed reservations about serving because of a new grandchild and said she might have difficulty being impartial; the trial court denied a for‑cause strike, and defense used a peremptory to remove her.
- Trial court allowed the day‑in‑the‑life video (with redactions), gave a consciousness‑of‑guilt instruction, excused a juror the morning after a chambers discussion (with defendant present when the formal dismissal occurred), and refused the defendant’s requested accident instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Goulding's Argument (Plaintiff) | State's Argument (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court denied motion to excuse Juror 9 for cause | Juror 9 said she could not be fair because of a new grandchild and the nature of charges; she should have been excused | Juror 9 expressly denied bias against Goulding and only expressed difficulty; denial was within trial court discretion | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; juror’s equivocation and trial court’s opportunity to observe demeanour supported decision |
| Admission of “day‑in‑the‑life” video | Video was unduly prejudicial and cumulative; it emphasized mother’s sympathy and could bias jury on liability | Video was relevant to elements (cruel and excessive pain; rendering body part useless); State may choose evidence to prove its case; trial court properly redacted and balanced probative value vs prejudice | Admission was within trial court’s broad discretion and not an abuse; relevance to statutory elements justified use |
| Jury instruction re: attempt to influence witness (consciousness of guilt) | Instruction was unsupported by evidence, risked burden‑shifting, and was an improper comment on evidence | Evidence of attempts to influence witness existed; instruction is accepted and not established as erroneous | Not plain error; instruction permissible and not an impermissible judicial opinion on guilt |
| Defendant’s right to be present when a juror was excused | Defendant argues he was absent for juror colloquy and not consulted about excusal vs delay, violating right to be present | Colloquy about juror’s medical convenience was non‑critical; formal decision to excuse occurred in open court with defendant present | No violation: critical decision occurred in open court with defendant present; earlier chambers matters related to juror comfort |
| Refusal to charge on accident | Sufficient evidence (accidental tossing, car‑seat strap, handling after blue episode) warranted the instruction | Defendant did not admit committing the act; defense theory was that others caused injuries, not that defendant acted accidentally | Charge on accident not required because defendant did not admit the act and sought to blame others; trial court properly refused instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- Poole v. State, 291 Ga. 848 (juror excusal for cause requires fixed opinion preventing impartiality)
- Brooks v. State, 281 Ga. 514 (trial court discretion on relevance and probative/prejudicial balancing)
- Jones v. State, 272 Ga. 900 (State must prove elements beyond reasonable doubt; not‑guilty plea does not allow defendant to concede elements)
- Collier v. State, 288 Ga. 756 (charge wording that permits jury discretion in considering impeachment is not impermissible comment on evidence)