Jordan v. the State
328 Ga. App. 462
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- James William Jordan was convicted of aggravated assault and sodomy after an incident on Feb. 27, 2009 in which he forced an ex-girlfriend at knifepoint to perform oral sex and attempted anal intercourse; he was acquitted of rape and kidnapping.
- Victim testimony, medical exam showing severe oral and anal injuries, and threats/knife evidence supported the State’s theory of force; letters and witness testimony indicated attempts to influence victim testimony.
- Jordan sought a jury instruction adding the phrase “by force” to the sodomy charge, relying on Powell v. State (which decriminalized private, unforced, noncommercial sexual intimacy among consenting adults) as his sole defense; the trial court denied the request.
- During deliberations, the jury asked for the legal definition of sodomy; the court read the statutory definition but did not inform the jury that non-forcible, private acts were decriminalized under Powell; Jordan did not object to the court’s answer at trial.
- The State introduced similar-transaction evidence of a 2006 assault/rape of another ex-girlfriend by Jordan to show bent of mind and course of conduct; the trial court admitted that evidence and the Court of Appeals found admission proper.
Issues
| Issue | Jordan's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury should have been instructed that Powell decriminalizes private, unforced, noncommercial sexual acts and thus consent is a defense to sodomy | Trial court’s refusal to add "by force" and failure to tell jury Powell’s category denied Jordan instruction on his sole defense | The statutory definition read to the jury was sufficient; force is not an element of sodomy statute | Reversed sodomy conviction: court held trial court erred by not informing jury that absence of force (per Powell/Howard/Watson) could be a defense when that was defendant’s sole defense and jury asked about definition |
| Whether similar-transaction evidence was admissible | The incidents were not sufficiently similar and evidence was offered for improper purpose | Evidence was offered to show course of conduct and bent of mind; numerous strong similarities between incidents | Affirmed admission: trial court did not abuse discretion; similarities and proper purpose shown |
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions | (implied) Convictions unsupported if instruction error or lack of force | Medical and testimonial evidence established forcible sodomy and aggravated assault | Evidence sufficient for aggravated assault and non-consensual sodomy as charged (but sodomy conviction reversed for instructional error) |
| Procedural: preservation of jury-charge claim | Did not submit written request to charge on Powell; claim may be forfeited | Failure to request written instruction ordinarily required | Court applied exception: where sole defense has some supporting evidence and jury was confused, trial court must instruct even without written request; error was clearly harmful |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Powell v. State, 270 Ga. 327 (decriminalizes private, unforced, noncommercial sexual intimacy between consenting adults)
- Watson v. State, 293 Ga. 817 (construing solicitation/sodomy to require performance in public, for money, by force, or with person unable to consent)
- Price v. State, 289 Ga. 459 (trial court must charge jury on defendant’s sole defense even without written request if supported by some evidence)
- Reeves v. State, 294 Ga. 673 (standards for admitting similar-transaction evidence; review for abuse of discretion)
- Shepherd v. State, 280 Ga. 245 (standards on when omission of requested charge is clearly harmful and erroneous)
- Chase v. State, 277 Ga. 636 (instruction failure that does not provide proper guidelines is clearly harmful)