Ruffin v. the State
333 Ga. App. 793
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Jerry Lamar Ruffin was convicted by a jury of multiple sexual offenses against an eight‑year‑old, including rape, statutory rape, incest, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, and two counts of child molestation.
- A family nurse practitioner testified as an expert on the forensic sexual assault exam she performed and described abnormal hymenal findings.
- The nurse used and labeled a basic anatomical line drawing (State’s Exhibit 11) during testimony; the exhibit was admitted without objection.
- After instructions, defense counsel voiced a vague “small issue” about the diagram going to the jury room but did not articulate a specific legal ground (e.g., continuing witness rule).
- The trial court indicated it would allow the exhibit to go out; the record does not clearly show whether the diagram actually accompanied the jury during deliberations.
Issues
| Issue | Ruffin's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing the anatomical diagram to go to the jury violated the continuing‑witness rule | The diagram was a “continuing witness” (written testimony equivalent) and should not have gone out with the jury | The diagram was demonstrative, illustrative of testimony, not the functional equivalent of a deposition; continuing‑witness rule inapplicable | Court held the diagram is demonstrative evidence, not continuing‑witness material; no error in allowing it to go out |
| Whether the objection was preserved for appeal | Counsel objected but only said he had a “small issue” and the exhibit was “benign” | The defense failed to state a specific ground for objection at trial | Court held the objection was too vague to preserve the continuing‑witness claim; waiver |
| Whether the evidence supported the convictions (reviewed sua sponte) | N/A (defendant did not raise general grounds) | State: victim’s testimony and medical evidence sufficed | Court found that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could convict; victim’s testimony alone was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Tibbs v. Tibbs, 257 Ga. 370 (1992) (continuing‑witness rule explained; written testimony may not be sent to jury)
- James v. State, 270 Ga. 675 (1999) (anatomical charts used to illustrate testimony are demonstrative, not continuing‑witness evidence)
- Slade v. State, 287 Ga. App. 34 (2007) (general/vague objections insufficient to preserve appellate review)
- Johnson v. State, 287 Ga. App. 533 (2007) (defendant must articulate specific grounds for objection to preserve issue)
- Gant v. State, 313 Ga. App. 329 (2011) (burden on appellant to show an exhibit actually went out with the jury)