KERDPOKA v. State
314 Ga. App. 400
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Kerdpoka was convicted of child molestation; he appeals on voir dire, evidence, cross-examination, juror conduct, and ineffective assistance claims.
- A 12-year-old victim told her mother the father had touched her; doctor noted genital touching and herpes antibodies.
- The Hughes family employed Nitaya Meebamroong, the appellant’s mother, for 14 years; the appellant lived in the Hughes household.
- The victim testified that the father (Kerdpoka) touched her and had sex with her; a witness described his admission, “I did it.”
- Defense objections focused on trial-court rulings on voir dire, admission of character evidence, cross-examination limits, juror remarks, and alleged ineffective assistance; the trial court’s rulings were challenged on appeal.
- The appellate court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sequestered voir dire denied | Kerdpoka sought sequestered voir dire | The court used confidential questionnaires and allowed limited private questioning | No reversible error |
| Mistrial over DUI evidence denied | DUI mention prejudiced the jury | Inadvertent remark with curative instruction; no prejudice | No abuse of discretion |
| Opening door to bad character evidence | Cardozo psychologist cross-examination opened door to drinking evidence | Waived on appeal; ineffective assistance claimed later | Waived on appeal; no reversible error (ineffective assistance addressed later) |
| Limitations on cross-examination of victim | Defense sought broader impeachment based on prior testimony | Court acted within discretion to protect child witness | No reversible error |
| Juror misconduct and mistrial claim | Juror Dry’s remarks warranted mistrial | Court properly excused jurors and instructed remaining panel | No new trial required; no due-process violation |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — three grounds | Lead counsel failed to adjust cross-examination; assistant counsel opened door; seal order issue | Counsel's strategy; no prejudice; some issues waived | No reversible error; verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. State, 268 Ga. 28 (Ga. 1997) (mistrial when prejudicial third-party conduct arises; discretion to assess prejudice)
- Browning v. State, 236 Ga.App. 893 (Ga. App. 1999) (inadvertent DUI mention curable by instruction; no abuse of discretion)
- Sims v. State, 266 Ga. 417 (Ga. 1996) (prejudice standard for juror misconduct; immaterial irregularities can be harmless)
- Lancaster v. State, 189 Ga.App. 149 (Ga. App. 1988) (distinguishable from inadvertent testimony; not controlling here)
- Inman v. State, 281 Ga. 67 (Ga. 2006) (no reversible error without demonstrated harm from cross-examination)
- Kolokouris v. State, 271 Ga. 597 (Ga. 1999) (limits on cross-examination within reasonable bounds)
- Chesser v. State, 228 Ga.App. 164 (Ga. App. 1997) (waiver when objection not preserved on appeal)
- Edwards v. State, 235 Ga. 603 (Ga. 1959) (principle against induced error when a party invites the error)
- Patterson v. State, 285 Ga. 597 (Ga. 2009) (mistrial not required when evidence elicited; strategy considerations)
- Green v. State, 218 Ga.App. 648 (Ga. App. 1995) (assistance standards; presumption of effective assistance)