Sanders v. State
308 Ga. App. 303
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Sanders was convicted of seven counts of child molestation and aggravated child molestation involving two girls, D.M. (7) and L.B. (4).
- In 2005–2006 Sanders moved into an apartment with Arashanda Bridges and her daughter L.B.; D.M. is Bridges’ daughter, and Sanders babysat both girls.
- In December 2006 Sanders summoned D.M. to a bedroom, engaged in sexual acts including kissing, touching, and oral activity, and told her not to tell her parents.
- D.M. and L.B. disclosed abuse to their parents and were interviewed by a detective; both underwent forensic examinations.
- The State introduced D.M.’s videotaped interview in which she described the acts and body parts, and the medical findings included L.B.’s anal skin tag indicating trauma.
- Sanders challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and argued about potential merger of convictions; the trial court denied relief and the verdicts were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for D.M. aggravated molestation | Sanders placed mouth on D.M. vagina and touched her with hands. | D.M. testimony alone insufficient; relied on hearsay/interview. | Sufficient evidence supports conviction. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for D.M. touching the vagina | Evidence includes D.M. statements and videotaped interview. | D.M. did not testify to the touching. | Videotaped statement admissible; sufficient evidence exists. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for L.B. molestation counts | L.B.’s testimony plus out-of-court statements and medical evidence establish guilt. | Only victim's testimony supported convictions. | Evidence, viewed in light most favorable to verdict, sufficient. |
| Intent/arousal element for D.M. kissing on the mouth | Intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires can be inferred from conduct and statements. | Arousal necessity not shown or required. | Intent to commit immoral act inferred; sufficient evidence of requisite intent. |
| merger of convictions | Review of merging multiple convictions. | Challenge to merger warrants review. | Argument not properly presented for review; affirmed on sufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. State, 291 Ga.App. 210, 661 S.E.2d 618 (2008) (victim statements may serve as substantive evidence under child hearsay rule)
- Maddox v. State, 275 Ga.App. 869, 622 S.E.2d 80 (2005) (sufficiency standard—any evidence supporting each element)
- Phillips v. State, 269 Ga.App. 619, 604 S.E.2d 520 (2004) (intent is a question for the jury; conduct and circumstances may prove)
- Holloway v. State, 268 Ga.App. 300, 601 S.E.2d 753 (2004) (intent may be inferred from circumstances)
- Branam v. State, 204 Ga.App. 205, 419 S.E.2d 86 (1992) (intent and surrounding facts support a finding of requisite intent)
- Goss v. State, 305 Ga.App. 497, 699 S.E.2d 819 (2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency on appeal)
- Vaughn v. State, 301 Ga.App. 391, 687 S.E.2d 651 (2009) (credibility not weighed; conflicts resolved in favor of verdict)
- Garduno v. State, 299 Ga.App. 32, 682 S.E.2d 145 (2009) (victim's statements and corroboration support convictions)
- Thornton v. State, 306 Ga.App. 47, 701 S.E.2d 533 (2010) (sufficiency review for multiple offenses)
- Lopez v. State, 291 Ga.App. 210, 661 S.E.2d 618 (2008) (reiterated admissibility of victim statements as substantive evidence)