Ottley v. State
325 Ga. App. 15
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Winfred Ottley was convicted by a jury of multiple child sex offenses (rape, aggravated child molestation, incest, sexual battery, aggravated assault, child molestation, cruelty to children) and received a life sentence as a recidivist; he appealed the denial of his motion for new trial.
- Victim (the mother’s daughter) testified that abuse began circa May 2006 when she was nine, included forced intercourse with a knife threat and later oral contact in January 2009; she reported the abuse in May 2009 after the parents separated and divorce litigation began.
- Medical evidence: pediatrician Dr. Mansfield noted asymmetry/scarring of the hymen consistent with blunt trauma but hymen intact; SANE nurse Cathy Cooley described stretched labia, gaping vaginal opening, a “wrinkle wound,” and hymenal scarring she attributed to repetitive blunt penetrating trauma; Cooley testified as an expert and presented photos.
- Defense strategy at trial focused on attacking victim/family credibility and relying on Dr. Mansfield’s notation of an intact hymen; defense counsel did not interview Cooley or Dr. Mansfield pretrial, did not research SANE testimony, did not cross-examine Cooley, and asked only two questions of Dr. Mansfield.
- At the post-trial motion hearing, defense submitted affidavits (Dr. Mansfield and Dr. William Simpson) stating alternative explanations: hymenal change can result from blunt trauma including masturbation and labial size/appearance can be congenital; counsel conceded he was unprepared to rebut Cooley’s expert opinions.
- Appellate court found the evidence (viewed in the light most favorable to the State) sufficient to support convictions but concluded counsel’s failure to investigate, prepare, and present or challenge medical expert evidence was deficient and prejudicial—requiring a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ottley) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence contradicted and victim unreliable; medical evidence not conclusive | Victim’s direct testimony plus medical and behavioral evidence sufficed | Convictions supported; evidence sufficient when viewed for the prosecution (Jackson standard) |
| Application of reasonable-hypothesis rule | Evidence fails to exclude other hypotheses | Rule inapplicable because victim testimony was direct, not wholly circumstantial | Rule does not apply; direct testimony controls |
| Ineffective assistance — investigation/preparation of medical experts | Counsel failed to interview/explore State medical witnesses and did not obtain/offer rebuttal experts | Counsel was experienced and chose strategy to accept State medical evidence as helpful | Counsel’s performance was deficient for failing to investigate Cooley/Dr. Mansfield and medical issues |
| Ineffective assistance — prejudice from failures | Lack of cross-examination and rebuttal left State experts untested; reasonable probability verdict would differ with proper testing/rebuttal | State argued evidence otherwise sufficient | Prejudice shown: medical evidence was crucial; omission likely affected outcome — new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Norton v. State, 293 Ga. 332 (2013) (standards for ineffective assistance review: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Goldstein v. State, 283 Ga. App. 1 (2006) (counsel ineffective where failure to test State’s expert medical evidence required new trial)
- Jowers v. State, 260 Ga. 459 (1990) (counsel has duty to make reasonable investigations; ineffective assistance where investigation inadequate)
- Rodriguez v. State, 281 Ga. App. 129 (2006) (licensed nurses and specially trained practitioners may be qualified to testify as medical experts)