Miceli v. State
308 Ga. App. 225
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Miceli was convicted by a jury of three counts of child molestation (Counts 1, 2, and 4) and acquitted of one count of aggravated sexual battery (Count 3).
- A.B. was eight at trial; she testified Miceli, her mother's boyfriend, molested her starting when she was five.
- DNA and semen stains on bed linens matched Miceli; Dr. Davis testified to semen presence and DNA match.
- Dr. Campbell, a clinical psychologist, testified about A.B.'s disclosures and behaviors consistent with abuse.
- Miceli testified in his defense denying the abuse and claiming he and A.B.'s mother sometimes had sex in A.B.'s bedroom; he pointed to infrequent sheet washing.
- Post-trial, Miceli obtained an order for an out-of-time appeal and appealed the trial court’s restriction on cross-examination of the victim’s mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion restricting cross-examination of the victim’s mother. | Miceli argued the cross-examination would show bias or motive. | State argued the questioning was irrelevant to the current proceeding. | No reversible error; restriction was harmless given overwhelming direct and DNA evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 280 Ga.App. 884, 635 S.E.2d 240 (Ga. App. 2006) (cross-examination limits reviewed for abuse of discretion; harmless where other evidence is strong)
- Patrick v. State, 247 Ga.App. 495, 544 S.E.2d 194 (Ga. App. 2001) (proffer requirements for ruling on evidence on appeal)
- Banks v. State, 250 Ga.App. 728, 552 S.E.2d 903 (Ga. App. 2001) (relevance and cross-examination rulings within trial court’s discretion)
- French v. State, 288 Ga.App. 775, 655 S.E.2d 224 (Ga. App. 2007) (evidence admissibility and cross-examination considerations)
- Letlow v. State, 222 Ga.App. 339, 474 S.E.2d 211 (Ga. App. 1996) (harmless error analysis for restricted cross-examination)