Harris v. the State
330 Ga. App. 267
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2006 a jury convicted Marvis Harris of rape and kidnapping based on a 1995 attack; DNA later matched Harris to biological evidence from the victim.
- Victim testified she was grabbed at a MARTA station, told there was a gun, and was forced to have sex in a car while Harris’s cousin drove; the cousin also had intercourse with her.
- A witness (a former schoolmate) aided the victim immediately after she escaped; medical exam produced cervical swabs entered into the GBI database, yielding a DNA match in 2005.
- At trial Harris and his cousin testified the sex was consensual; the cousin, in long nonresponsive answers, described Harris as “probably the nicest people [at Freaknik].”
- The State sought to impeach that testimony and rebut the implied good-character testimony by introducing Harris’s prior convictions; the trial court admitted them, finding the defense had "opened the door."
- The State’s expert on rape psychology (who had not interviewed the victim) testified about typical victim behavior and, on voir dire, stated that false rape reports are nationally under 1%; defense objected but the court qualified the witness and admitted testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Harris’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense opened the door to admission of Harris’s prior convictions | The cousin’s statement was inadvertent/nonresponsive and did not intentionally put Harris’s character at issue | Defense strategy allowed long nonresponsive testimony; failing to object implied intent to inject character, permitting rebuttal impeachment | Trial court did not abuse discretion; prior convictions admissible because defense opened the door |
| Whether expert’s testimony about patterns of rape victims and false-report statistics was improper bolstering or invaded jury province | Expert’s statistical statement and pattern testimony improperly bolstered the victim and was irrelevant | Expert limited to general patterns; she had not opined on this victim’s credibility; testimony assists jurors without usurping their role | Admission was not erroneous; expert may testify on typical victim behavior so long as jury decides credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Knight v. State, 251 Ga. App. 145 (discussing standard of review on sufficiency and viewing evidence for appeals)
- Bell v. State, 311 Ga. App. 289 (jury credibility determinations are for the jury)
- Arnold v. State, 305 Ga. App. 45 (defendant may open door to bad-character evidence by putting character at issue)
- Redman v. State, 281 Ga. App. 605 (defense witness’s testimony of good character opens door to State’s introduction of character evidence)
- Porter v. State, 243 Ga. App. 498 (specific events may test witness knowledge once character door opened)
- Jones v. State, 257 Ga. 753 (inadvertent/nonresponsive answer does not automatically open character door)
- Hill v. State, 243 Ga. App. 124 (trial court determines whether character evidence was intentionally put at issue)
- Franklin v. State, 251 Ga. 77 (absence of objection to witness’s favorable statement opened door to character evidence)
- Merritt v. State, 288 Ga. App. 89 (affirming trial court’s finding that defendant opened character door by testimony of remorse)
- Lindsey v. State, 282 Ga. 447 (single inadvertent statement of good character did not open door to extensive character evidence)
- Stinson v. State, 221 Ga. App. 758 (isolated nonresponsive claim of not converting to criminal life did not open door)
- Harris v. State, 283 Ga. App. 374 (expert testimony on victim-typical behavior permissible if jury retains final credibility determination)
- Edmonson v. State, 212 Ga. App. 449 (expert testimony on victim behavior admissible to explain typical responses)
- Curtis v. State, 275 Ga. 576 (discussing limits and grounds for expert testimony on victim behavior)