Hunt v. the State
336 Ga. App. 821
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Edward Hunt was convicted on 16 counts (rape, child molestation, aggravated child molestation, and cruelty to a child) based on testimony by K.B. recounting repeated sexual abuse beginning at age six and continuing episodically through adolescence.
- Two similar-transaction witnesses testified: S.B. (comment suggesting sexualized conduct) and H.H. (the defendant’s biological daughter, who reported sexual acts).
- A forensic interviewer (Becky Lee) testified about Child Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CAAS); defense cross-examined Lee but did not present a rebuttal expert.
- The State charged several crimes in six matching pairs of counts that alleged identical offenses within the same broad date ranges, with the second count in each pair alleging the offense occurred on a different (unknown) date within the same range.
- Hunt appealed, arguing (1) insufficiency of evidence, (2) erroneous admission of similar-transaction evidence and child hearsay, (3) improper admission of domestic-violence testimony, and (4) ineffective assistance for not challenging CAAS scientifically.
- The Court affirmed convictions but vacated sentences for the six matching-count pairs and remanded for resentencing because only one sentence may be imposed for indistinguishable counts covering the same date range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hunt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Testimony and corroboration (behavioral effects, reports to DFACS, similar transactions) proved each charged offense | Evidence was insufficient to support convictions | Convictions affirmed — evidence was sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to the prosecution (Jackson standard) |
| Sentencing on matching paired counts | Each pair reflected separate occasions and supported separate convictions/sentences | Paired counts were indistinguishable (same date range; exact dates unknown) so only one sentence per identical pair permitted | Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing — only one sentence may be imposed per indistinguishable count pair (trial court erred imposing separate sentences) |
| Admission of similar-transaction and child hearsay (S.B. and H.H.) | Evidence admissible to show bent of mind, course of conduct, scheme; child statements admissible under former OCGA §24-3-16 with sufficient indicia of reliability | Evidence and child hearsay were improper and prejudicial | No abuse of discretion — similar-transaction evidence and child hearsay admissible under prior law; appellant failed to identify specific hearsay errors on appeal |
| Admission of domestic-violence testimony | Testimony relevant to force and explains delay in disclosure | Evidence improperly placed character in issue and did not show delay causation | No abuse of discretion — evidence relevant to force (intimidation/threats) and admissible despite incidental character implications |
| Ineffective assistance for not presenting expert to rebut CAAS | CAAS testimony admissible; defense cross-examined expert; strategic choice not to call rebuttal expert | Counsel ineffective for failing to challenge scientific basis of CAAS | Claim denied — counsel’s tactical decision to cross-examine rather than call a rebuttal expert was reasonable and not deficient performance |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Daniels v. State, 320 Ga. App. 340 (matching or indistinguishable counts limit sentencing to one sentence)
- Johnson v. State, 289 Ga. 22 (three-prong test for admissibility of similar-transaction evidence)
- Gregg v. State, 201 Ga. App. 238 (factors for assessing indicia of reliability for child hearsay)
- Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10 (standard of review for admission of similar-transaction evidence)
- Brown v. State, 292 Ga. 454 (ineffective-assistance framework and deference to tactical decisions)
- Dillard v. State, 297 Ga. 756 (permissible purposes for similar-transaction evidence under prior law)
- Banta v. State, 282 Ga. 392 (criminal cruelty may be proven by showing mental harm from sexual misconduct)
- LaPan v. State, 167 Ga. App. 250 (limitations on multiple sentences where dates are not essential averments)
- Leaptrot v. State, 272 Ga. App. 587 (admission of noncriminal but inappropriate conduct to show lustful disposition)