Jackson v. State
309 Ga. App. 450
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jackson was convicted of two counts of aggravated child molestation and one count of child molestation; sentenced to life without parole; appealing denial of motion for new trial.
- Victim G.W. lived with Jackson for several years, described a routine of sexual abuse including anal penetration and oral sex.
- Similar-transaction evidence involved a 1989 case where Jackson pled guilty to aggravated child molestation of an eight-year-old and was mentally ill.
- State sought to admit the prior acts for purposes including identity, plan, motive, bent of mind, and course of conduct; trial court admitted for bent of mind, course of conduct, and lustful disposition.
- Prosecutor argued about the victim’s veracity using detailed testimony; defense contends this created error and ineffective assistance claim.
- Court affirmed: evidence admissible for lustful disposition and course of conduct; no ineffective assistance based on closing argument remarks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of similar-transaction evidence | Jackson | Jackson | Admissible for lustful disposition and course of conduct. |
| Ineffective assistance claim based on closing arguments | Jackson | Jackson | No error; arguments did not express prosecutor’s personal belief; objections meritless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. State, 304 Ga.App. 403 (2010) (admissibility of similar-transaction evidence in sexual abuse cases; relevance balances prejudice)
- Pareja v. State, 286 Ga. 117 (2009) (requirements for admissibility of similar transactions; relevance and similarity)
- Cook v. State, 276 Ga.App. 803 (2005) (lustful disposition evidence in child molestation cases)
- Jackson v. State, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for determining sufficiency of evidence (App. review))
- Moody v. State, 273 Ga. 24 (2000) (proper framing of closing argument issues on appeals)
- Williams v. State, 263 Ga.App. 22 (2003) (contextual detail and witness credibility arguments)
