Kritlow v. the State
339 Ga. App. 353
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Gary Kritlow was convicted by a jury of aggravated sodomy, aggravated sexual battery, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and sexual battery arising from a December 16, 2013 incident in which he forced a homeowner into an upstairs bathroom and sexually assaulted her.
- Victim testified that Kritlow fondled her, digitally penetrated her, forced her to perform oral sex until he ejaculated, and physically prevented her escape; she fled and called police after he left.
- DNA testing showed Kritlow’s semen on the victim’s pants.
- The State introduced evidence of two prior sexual-offense convictions: a 2005 Alabama plea for enticing a 14-year-old (similar confinement and touching) and a Tennessee sexual-battery plea involving locking a coworker in a bathroom and touching her.
- Kritlow challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence, (2) admission of prior sexual offenses under OCGA § 24-4-413, and (3) exclusion of impeachment about the victim’s alleged financial motive to fabricate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State: evidence (victim testimony + DNA) supports convictions beyond reasonable doubt | Kritlow: pointed to alleged conflicts/inconsistencies in evidence to challenge sufficiency | Court: evidence sufficient; credibility/conflicts for jury to resolve, conviction affirmed |
| Admissibility of prior sexual-offense convictions | State: prior acts admissible under OCGA § 24-4-413 to show intent and lustful disposition, and to rebut fabrication claim | Kritlow: prior acts were unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded under OCGA § 24-4-403 | Court: § 24-4-413 creates strong presumption of inclusion; prior acts relevant to intent, propensity, and rebutting fabrication; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; admission proper |
| Exclusion of impeachment based on victim’s finances | Kritlow: victim’s financial difficulties could show bias/motive to fabricate (e.g., to sue employer) | State: no evidence linking financial status to motive to fabricate; impeachment speculative and immaterial | Court: excluded because no reasonable inference of motive to distort testimony; victim’s finances immaterial; exclusion proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Newsome v. State, 324 Ga. App. 665 (discussing standard of review on sufficiency)
- Byrd v. State, 325 Ga. App. 24 (same)
- Hampton v. State, 272 Ga. 284 (jury resolves conflicts/credibility)
- Steele v. State, 337 Ga. App. 562 (§ 24-4-413 creates strong presumption of admissibility)
- Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (relevance and intent as element of crime)
- Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (intent becomes material when defendant pleads not guilty)
- Marlow v. State, 337 Ga. App. 1 (prior acts can bolster victim credibility and rebut fabrication)
- Noellien v. State, 298 Ga. App. 47 (bias/motive impeachment requires reasonable inference of motive to distort testimony)
- Gilbert v. State, 159 Ga. App. 326 (immaterial matters not valid impeachment)