Latta v. the State
341 Ga. App. 696
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- William A. Latta, while performing AC repair at a home on July 26, 2013, was accused of putting a six‑year‑old girl, M.A., on his lap and touching her vagina over her clothing. The mother saw Latta with his hands between the child’s legs and pulled the child away. Latta left the scene and later gave a recorded pre‑arrest interview denying intentional contact.
- M.A. made immediate outcry statements to her mother, a neighbor, and officers; she also identified the touching in a videotaped interview with a detective.
- The State introduced other‑acts evidence that, in 2008, Latta had touched the buttocks of a developmentally disabled student worker while on a repair job; Latta had not been criminally charged for that incident.
- A jury convicted Latta of child molestation (OCGA § 16‑6‑4(a)(1)). Latta appealed, raising sufficiency, admissibility of other‑acts evidence, admissibility of child outcry statements, a jury charge on prior inconsistent statements, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it found the evidence sufficient, other‑acts evidence admissible under OCGA § 24‑4‑413(a), M.A.’s outcry statements admissible under OCGA § 24‑8‑820, the pattern jury charge waived, and no deficient performance by trial counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Latta's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of sexual intent | Evidence did not show intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires | Jury could infer intent from circumstances (lap, hand on vagina, duration) | Affirmed: viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, rational trier could find intent and guilt (Jackson standard) |
| Admission of other‑acts evidence (2008 incident) | Evidence of prior touching was prejudicial, not proven intentional, and defendant was never charged | Evidence concerned another "offense of sexual assault" and was admissible under OCGA § 24‑4‑413(a); probative value outweighed prejudice | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion admitting the evidence under § 24‑4‑413(a) and § 24‑4‑403 balance supported admission |
| Admission of child outcry statements to four witnesses | Statements were hearsay, lacked indicia of reliability, and did not qualify as prior consistent statements | Statements satisfied OCGA § 24‑8‑820 (child hearsay statute); statute does not require indicia of reliability; admissible even if bolstering | Affirmed (plain‑error standard not met): statements admissible under OCGA § 24‑8‑820 |
| Jury charge on prior inconsistent statements | Charge insufficient/erroneous | Charge tracked current pattern instruction; Latta requested it at trial and objected to nothing | Waived: defendant submitted and requested the pattern charge; appellate review (including plain error) barred |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to object to outcry testimony, requested improper jury charge, and failed to seek mistrial/curative instruction after prosecutor comment | Objections would have been meritless; pattern charge was proper; prosecutor’s closing comment referred to recorded interview (not silence invoking Fifth Amendment) | Affirmed: no deficient performance shown under Strickland; comments not improper; no prejudice demonstrated |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes Jackson sufficiency standard)
- Miller v. State, 273 Ga. 831 (competent evidence, even if contradicted, sustains verdict)
- McMurtry v. State, 338 Ga. App. 622 (child hearsay and other‑acts jurisprudence applied)
- Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (discusses probative value and admissibility of sexual‑assault evidence)
- Grimsley v. State, 233 Ga. App. 781 (intent is for jury to decide)
- Ayers v. State, 286 Ga. App. 898 (inference of sexual intent from conduct)
- Silvey v. State, 335 Ga. App. 383 (standard for reviewing trial court’s admission of other‑acts evidence)