Matabarahona v. the State, 335 Ga. App. 25

Defendant Manuel Matabarahona was convicted by a jury of one count of child molestation for an incident at a Memorial Day weekend gathering in 2008 involving an 8‑year‑old victim (D.A.).
Victim’s mother found Matabarahona on a couch with his pants open and his arm around D.A.; D.A. appeared frightened and later told his mother Matabarahona had tried to get him to touch him.
A recorded forensic interview of D.A. at a children’s center was played for the jury; D.A. did not testify at trial.
Detective Hicks testified about investigative steps, including unsuccessful attempts to contact Matabarahona to set up an interview.
Matabarahona appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, denial of confrontation rights for not calling the child to testify, and ineffective assistance for failure to object to the detective’s testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for child molestation	State: physical discovery, victim’s scared appearance, victim’s statements and forensic interview support conviction	Matabarahona: evidence insufficient to prove molestation	Affirmed: evidence sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia standard
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to detective’s testimony about attempts to contact defendant	Matabarahona: State elicited improper testimony about his silence; counsel should have objected	State: testimony was part of investigatory narrative and not intended to show defendant’s silence; any error was nonprejudicial	Affirmed: no prejudice shown under Strickland; no reversible error
Confrontation Clause / admission of child hearsay (forensic interview and mother’s testimony)	Matabarahona: right to confront D.A. violated because child did not testify	State: complied with child‑hearsay statute and trial court found sufficient indicia of reliability; defendant did not raise Confrontation Clause objection at trial	Affirmed: defendant waived Confrontation Clause objection by not asserting it at trial; court applied Hatley procedures and admitted statements as reliable

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for assessing sufficiency of evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test)
Hatley v. State, 290 Ga. 480 (construing child‑hearsay statute to protect Confrontation Clause; procedural protections required)
Whitaker v. State, 283 Ga. 521 (investigative narrative testimony about defendant’s silence not necessarily prejudicial)
Hill v. State, 291 Ga. 160 (clarifying prejudice standard under Strickland)