Lengsfeld v. State, 324 Ga. App. 775

Lengsfeld, a Newnan police officer, was convicted by a jury of four counts each of child molestation and enticing a child for indecent purposes, and five counts of violation of oath by public officer, based on repeated sexual contact and communications with a 15‑year‑old student he instructed in martial arts.
Incidents occurred May–July 2009: he texted the victim, picked her up after she sneaked out, drove her to secluded locations (church parking lot, his home), and kissed and touched her breasts, thighs and genital area; on some occasions he exposed his penis or expressed intent to have sex.
After the victim’s parents discovered the texts, the academy owner and police became involved; the Newnan PD began an internal investigation and referred the matter to the GBI for a criminal investigation.
On July 29, 2009, Lengsfeld met a GBI agent for a criminal interview (after being told he was placed on paid administrative leave); he admitted various contacts but terminated the interview when he asked for an attorney.
Lengsfeld moved to suppress his statements, arguing Garrity protection and Miranda violations; he also argued merger of enticing counts into molestation counts and ineffective assistance for counsel’s withdrawal of a lesser‑included instruction request.
The trial court denied suppression, rejected merger and ineffective‑assistance claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lengsfeld)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether statements to GBI agent were protected by Garrity and involuntary	Statements compelled because he believed refusal would cost his job (Garrity protection)	No express or implicit threat of termination; he knew GBI interview was criminal and voluntarily agreed to speak	Court held no Garrity compulsion; statements admissible
Whether Miranda warnings were required for the GBI interview	He was effectively in custody and should have been Mirandized	He was not formally arrested or restrained to an extent associated with arrest; he was free to leave and ended interview when he asked for counsel	Court held Miranda not required because interview was noncustodial
Whether enticing convictions merge into child‑molestation convictions	Enticing merged because based on same conduct as molestation	Offenses are legally distinct and factually sequential (enticement completed before molestation)	Court held no merger; separate convictions/sentences permitted
Whether counsel was ineffective for withdrawing request to charge sexual battery	Withdrawal deprived him of a lesser‑included instruction that might have reduced convictions	Evidence established all elements of child molestation; no evidence supported only sexual battery; jury would not likely have convicted of lesser offense	Court held no ineffective assistance; refusal to charge sexual battery would have been proper given the evidence

Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (statements obtained under threat of removal from public office inadmissible)
State v. Aiken, 282 Ga. 132 (Ga. 2007) (adopted totality‑of‑circumstances test for Garrity analysis)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)