Lawton v. the State
340 Ga. App. 903
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant George Henry Lawton was convicted by a jury of rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation (merged into sodomy counts), and child molestation based on abuse of two children (M.M., age 10 at trial; M.B., age 8 at trial). Sentence: life plus 20 years.
- M.M. testified she was abused beginning at age eight, described multiple incidents (manual touching, genital intercourse with ejaculation), and gave video-recorded interview testimony describing abuse of both herself and M.B.
- M.B., who was about five at the time of the alleged abuse, testified at trial that she did not remember anything; however, M.M.’s recorded account described witnessing Lawton’s sexual acts involving M.B.
- Police contacted Lawton by phone, he agreed to meet for questioning on two occasions but failed to appear; he was later arrested in Florida after an arrest warrant issued.
- Lawton appealed, asserting: (1) insufficient evidence as to both victims, (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to call an expert to rebut state experts, and (3) improper admission/comment on his pre-arrest failure to come forward.
Issues
| Issue | Lawton's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (M.M. & M.B.) | Evidence insufficient, M.B. denied and M.M. equivocated about touching | M.M.’s testimony and recorded interview describing multiple incidents and witnessing abuse of M.B. supported convictions | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to sustain convictions under Jackson v. Virginia |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to call expert | Trial counsel unreasonably failed to present an expert to challenge state experts and interview techniques | Counsel made a strategic decision after reviewing recordings and consulting another lawyer; planned to attack via cross-examination | Affirmed — counsel’s choice was reasonable trial strategy; no deficient performance shown |
| Admission/comment on failure to come forward | Testimony about Lawton’s missed appointments and pre-arrest conduct improperly commented on silence (Mallory rule) | Lawton spoke with officer, agreed to meetings but did not appear; testimony addressed inconsistencies and flight — not Mallory-type silence | Affirmed — statements did not violate Mallory; evidence of flight admissible |
| Admission of flight evidence | (Implicit) Flight inadmissible as prejudicial | Flight to Florida and missed appointments bore on credibility and consciousness of guilt | Affirmed — flight evidence admissible and not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. State, 284 Ga. App. 811 (supports standard of review viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- Scott v. State, 290 Ga. 883 (two-prong Strickland framework for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Perdue v. State, 298 Ga. 841 (defense witness selection is tactical; reasonable-strategy standard)
- Gawlak v. State, 310 Ga. App. 757 (decision to forego counter-expert testimony can be reasonable strategy)
- Towry v. State, 304 Ga. App. 139 (foregoing expert after reviewing videotaped interview reasonable)
- Mallory v. State, 261 Ga. 625 (prohibits comment on defendant’s silence or failure to come forward)
- State v. Sims, 296 Ga. (explaining Mallory’s bright-line rule not violated by noting inconsistencies in pre-trial statements)
- Waters v. State, 303 Ga. App. 187 (evidence of flight admissible)