Joseph P. Kuprian v. State
A21A0472
Ga. Ct. App.Jun 15, 2021Background
- Defendant Joseph Kuprian was tried by jury on multiple counts of sexual offenses against his minor stepdaughter E.H.; he was acquitted on charges involving the other stepdaughter, E.B.H.
- E.H. testified that Kuprian, her former coach who married her mother, sexually abused her beginning when she was 14 while the mother was away for work.
- The jury convicted Kuprian of multiple counts of child molestation, aggravated child molestation, and incest as to E.H.; sentence: life plus 150 years.
- At trial the State introduced evidence of additional molestation allegations that occurred after the family moved to Kentucky.
- Kuprian appealed, arguing (1) the Kentucky acts were improperly admitted under OCGA § 24-4-404(b) and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain testimony (violence toward E.B.H. and financial misconduct evidence).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling the other-acts evidence was admissible under Georgia statutes governing sexual-assault/child-molestation evidence and that the ineffective-assistance claims failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other acts (Kentucky molestations) | Kuprian: evidence was barred by OCGA § 24-4-404(b) | State: evidence admissible under OCGA §§ 24-4-413 and 24-4-414 (rule of inclusion for sexual/child-molestation offenses) | Admitted; court did not abuse discretion; instruction limited jury use |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to E.B.H. violence testimony | Kuprian: counsel deficient for not objecting to re-direct testimony about beatings | State: defense cross opened the door, allowing re-direct explanation | Not deficient; opening-the-door doctrine justified re-direct |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to testimony about unpaid bills/check/loans | Kuprian: counsel should have objected as irrelevant/prejudicial | State: any objection would not likely have changed the verdict (no prejudice) | No prejudice shown; claim fails for lack of reasonable probability of different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. State, 341 Ga. App. 255 (2017) (OCGA §§ 24-4-413/414 create a strong presumption in favor of admitting other sexual/molestation acts)
- Moore v. State, 307 Ga. 290 (2019) (cross-examination can open the door to otherwise barred re-direct testimony)
- Strother v. State, 305 Ga. 838 (2019) (re-direct may admit extrinsic evidence when defense opens the door)
- St. Germain v. State, 358 Ga. App. 163 (2021) (reciting ineffective-assistance Strickland standard and analysis)
- Lupoe v. State, 300 Ga. 233 (2016) (prejudice requirement for ineffective-assistance claims)