Scales v. State
310 Ga. App. 48
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In 1993 a man abducted, raped, and forcibly restrained the victim, who could not identify him beyond being a black male in his early twenties of average height.
- DNA from the 1993 rape was later matched to Donald Scales in CODIS after the DNA profile became available in 1998.
- Georgia authorities learned of the CODIS match in January 2007, leading to Scales’ arrest and new DNA testing that confirmed the match with the 1993 evidence.
- Scales was indicted in 2007 for rape and kidnapping, re-indicted to add false imprisonment, and then re-indicted to toll the statute of limitation as to identity unknown.
- The trial proceeded on the last indictment; the trial court admitted CODIS-related testimony under a narrowly tailored limine ruling.
- The defense challenged the statute-of-limitations issue, the DNA/CODIS evidence, evidentiary rulings, voir dire rulings, alleged trial-preparation delays, and a claim of ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tolling due to unknown identity bars prosecution | Scales argues time-bar; identity unknown until 2007 tolls the period. | State contends tolling ended with CODIS match; indictment timely. | Statute tolled until 2007; indictment timely. |
| Admission and use of CODIS/DNA evidence | CODIS/DNA evidence is irrelevant or prejudicial as character evidence. | CODIS evidence explains why prosecution is now pursued and how investigation focused on Scales. | Admissible for limited, relevant purpose; not improper character evidence. |
| Challenged documentary exhibits and chain-of-custody testimony | Exhibits 7 and 8 were improperly admitted or unreliable. | Exhibits properly identified; admissible as business records; harmless error if any. | Admissible; any error harmless; no reversible error. |
| Juror bias and for-cause strike | Juror No. 20 should not have been struck; bias toward Scales implied. | Trial court properly struck biased juror; discretion accorded deference. | No abuse of discretion; juror properly struck. |
| Ineffective assistance and limitations defense strategy | Counsel should have raised plea-in-bar based on statute of limitations and delay. | Delay not attributable to prosecutorial bad faith; filing would have been futile. | No ineffective assistance; futile to pursue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tuzman, 145 Ga.App. 481 (Ga. App. 1978) (burden on State to prove timely crime or applicable exception)
- Jenkins v. State, 278 Ga. 598 (Ga. 2004) (unknown-identity tolling ends on actual knowledge)
- Beasley v. State, 244 Ga.App. 836 (Ga. App. 2000) (fingerprint/ID evidence and unknown suspect tolling concept)
- Wooten v. State, 262 Ga. 876 (Ga. 1993) (due process considerations for delays before arrest)
- McKeehan v. State, 274 Ga.App. 14 (Ga. App. 2005) (tolling when identity unknown; timely indictment otherwise)
- Keller v. State, 231 Ga.App. 546 (Ga. App. 1998) (DNA/fingerprint databases and non-improper character evidence)
- Jinks v. State, 229 Ga.App. 18 (Ga. App. 1997) (DNA database references are not per se character evidence)
- Flores v. State, 298 Ga.App. 574 (Ga. App. 2009) (asportation assessment in kidnapping under Garza factors)
- Chatman v. State, 283 Ga.App. 673 (Ga. App. 2007) (merger analysis; separate offenses must be proven with separate facts)
- Belmar v. State, 279 Ga. 795 (Ga. 2005) (harmless error when evidence cumulative)
- Rector v. State, 285 Ga. 714 (Ga. 2009) (admissibility of business records and expert opinion foundations)