Hatley v. State, 290 Ga. 480

Hatley was convicted of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, and two counts of sexual battery involving a person under sixteen; he appeals the Child Hearsay Statute as unconstitutional under the Confrontation Clause.
The offenses occurred April 4, 2009 in a motel where Hatley offered shelter to a homeless family; the mother witnessed Hatley with the three-year-old victim, C. C., on a bed with her pants down.
C. C. told her mother and later a forensic interviewer that Hatley sucked her and performed sexual acts; police interviews and a hospital exam corroborated sexual contact and saliva on the victim.
Hatley testified he never touched C. C.; he claimed saliva on the victim came from him dumping saliva in the toilet and that she fell into the toilet.
C. C., her mother, police officers, and the forensic interviewer testified about what C. C. said, but C. C. herself was not called to testify at trial.
The Georgia Supreme Court held OCGA § 24-3-16 unconstitutional as applied unless construed to require pretrial notice and an opportunity to confront the child witness; the Court overruled earlier cases to the extent inconsistent with Melendez-Diaz and adopted a notice-and-waive approach.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of OCGA § 24-3-16	Hatley argues the statute violates the Confrontation Clause as construed previously.	Hatley contends the State need not present the child witness at trial when hearsay is admitted under the statute.	Statute unconstitutional as applied unless pretrial notice and opportunity to object are provided.
Whether admission of hearsay from C. C. and others violated confrontation	Hatley contends the hearsay statements are testimonial and violative if not confronted.	State argues some statements are non-testimonial or are harmless error due to cumulativeness.	With proper construction, the hearsay can pass Confrontation Clause muster; if erroneous, error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Effect of pretrial notice requirement on confrontation rights	Hatley asserts no pretrial notice was given as required.	State contends notice is optional or waived by lack of objection at trial.	Court requires reasonable pretrial notice and opportunity to object; if objected, child must be produced; otherwise admissibility hinges on reliability.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (establishes testimonial vs. nontestimonial analysis under Confrontation Clause)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (recognizes confrontation rights for forensic laboratory reports; supports pretrial notice concept)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (develops primary purpose test for whether statements are testimonial)
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (adds factors for ongoing emergency and testimonial determination)
Sosebee v. State, 257 Ga. 298 (1987) (ga v. state on procedural requirements for child testimony under prior interpretations)
Vaughn v. State, 248 Ga. 127 (1981) (constitutional error harmless where evidence overwhelming)
Gay v. State, 279 Ga. 180 (2005) (harmless error principle in confrontation context)
Lindsey v. State, 282 Ga. 447 (2007) (confrontation and hearsay considerations in Georgia)