Roberts v. State
313 Ga. App. 849
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Roberts was convicted by a Gwinnett County jury of rape, incest, and aggravated sexual battery.
- On appeal, Roberts challenges sufficiency of the rape evidence and the admission of an interrogation recording with alleged improper officer commentary.
- The victim testified Roberts entered her bedroom, restrained her, and had intercourse while she screamed and said no.
- The recording included an officer stating he believed the victim and that Roberts raped her; the court admitted it without redaction.
- The court held the rape evidence sufficient and admitted the interrogation recording, finding it contained probative value and that any prejudicial impact was minimal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of rape evidence | Roberts contends no force or lack of consent shown | State asserts victim testimony of forcible intercourse proves element | Evidence sufficient to support rape conviction |
| Admissibility of interrogation recording | Admission without redaction improper because comments pertain to ultimate issue | Comments are not opinion testimony; interrogation is investigatory and admissible | Recording admitted without redaction; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. State, 310 Ga.App. 659 (Ga. App. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review; jury credibility prerogative)
- Ferguson v. State, 307 Ga.App. 232 (Ga. App. 2010) (credibility and evidentiary weighing by jury)
- Duran v. State, 274 Ga.App. 876 (Ga. App. 2005) (testimony of victim sufficient to prove rape)
- Shelton v. State, 251 Ga.App. 34 (Ga. App. 2001) (witnesses generally may not opine on truthfulness)
- Wright v. State, 285 Ga. 57 (Ga. 2009) (ultimate issue testimony generally not allowed)
- Collum v. State, 281 Ga. 719 (Ga. 2007) (law enforcement interrogations seek to determine ultimate issue; admissibility varies)
- Hames v. State, 278 Ga. 182 (Ga. 2004) (interrogation comments not always improper; context matters)
- Rowe v. State, 276 Ga. 800 (Ga. 2003) (interrogation statements examined for probative value vs. prejudice)
- Holland v. State, 221 Ga.App. 821 (Ga. App. 1996) (admission analyzed for prejudice versus probative value)
- Axelburg v. State, 294 Ga.App. 612 (Ga. App. 2008) (interrogation comments deemed inadmissible when highly prejudicial)