Hill v. Williams, 296 Ga. 753

Torrey Hill was tried in 1998 on an indictment alleging multiple crimes against A.G., including forcible rape (Count I), aggravated child molestation (Count II), child molestation (Count III), and enticing a child for indecent purposes (Count V); A.G. was alleged to be under 16.
The indictment did not expressly charge statutory rape, but the trial court (at the State's request, over Hill's objection) instructed the jury that statutory rape was a lesser included offense of forcible rape.
The jury acquitted Hill of forcible rape but convicted him of statutory rape and several other offenses; Hill appealed and his convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals in Hill v. State, 295 Ga. App. 360 (2008).
The Court of Appeals later held in Stuart v. State, 318 Ga. App. 839 (2012) that statutory rape is never a lesser included offense of forcible rape, overruling Hill as precedent.
Hill filed a pro se habeas petition claiming his statutory rape conviction violated due process because the indictment did not give him notice of that offense (and Stuart established statutory rape could not be included in forcible rape); the habeas court denied relief.
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial, accepting for purposes of decision that statutory rape was not a lesser included offense of forcible rape, but concluding the indictment as a whole provided constitutionally adequate notice and Hill failed to show prejudice to his defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hill was deprived of due process because the indictment failed to give notice of statutory rape	Hill: indictment charged forcible rape but not statutory rape; after Stuart statutory rape cannot be included in forcible rape, so he lacked notice and was unfairly surprised	State: indictment as a whole alleged elements of statutory rape (intercourse, victim under 16, not married) across counts; statutory rape could be included as a matter of fact in other counts (child molestation)	Court: No due process violation — indictment read as whole afforded adequate notice; even assuming statutory rape was not included in forcible rape, it was shown by other counts as a matter of fact
Whether any notice defect prejudiced Hill's defense (required for habeas relief)	Hill: surprise conviction impaired his ability to tailor defense (he prepared to contest force)	State: Hill simultaneously defended on counts that did not require force and his primary trial defense was complete denial of sexual relations, which would have defended against statutory rape too; Hill points to no specific prejudice	Court: No prejudice shown; habeas relief requires substantial denial of constitutional right and minor or technical defects that did not prejudice the accused are harmless

Hill v. State, 295 Ga. App. 360 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (Court of Appeals originally held statutory rape may sometimes be included in forcible rape as a matter of fact)
Stuart v. State, 318 Ga. App. 839 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (Court of Appeals held statutory rape is never a lesser included offense of forcible rape)
Mangrum v. State, 285 Ga. 676 (Ga. 2009) (discussing limits on lesser-included offense inclusion)
McCrary v. State, 252 Ga. 521 (Ga. 1984) (indictment must give notice; allegations across counts may be read together)
Andrews v. State, 200 Ga. App. 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991) (statutory rape may be included as a matter of fact in child molestation premised on intercourse)
Rumble v. Smith, 905 F.2d 176 (8th Cir. 1990) (federal habeas discussion recognizing state-law notions of notice and harmlessness when state law allowed lesser included charge at time of trial)