Sowell v. State
327 Ga. App. 532
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Victim A.H., age 3, told her aunt in summer 2011 that “Uncle Cody licked my tootie,” later repeated and pointed to her vaginal area. Aunt testified to this pretrial outcry.
- On Oct. 11, 2011, A.H.’s mother discovered Sowell next to A.H.’s bed with the child’s legs around him; Sowell pulled his genitals into his pants. A.H. told her mother Sowell “touched her tootie.”
- Medical examiners observed redness/irritation of A.H.’s vaginal area; forensic interview and hospital interview recorded statements consistent with the outcry.
- A green pill later found in Sowell’s pocket was identified as hydrocodone; Sowell admitted possession without a prescription and testified he used it for back pain.
- Sowell was indicted on one count aggravated child molestation (oral sodomy), two counts child molestation (touching and exposing), and one count possession of hydrocodone; he was convicted on all counts and denied a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sowell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of sexual-offense evidence | Victim’s statements, mother’s discovery, medical findings, and forensic interview support convictions | Evidence insufficient; video interview not properly authenticated; statements hearsay | Evidence sufficient; deputy authenticated video by observing interview; victim testimony and medical evidence cumulative and probative |
| Sufficiency of drug-possession evidence | Deputy identification and defendant’s admission support possession conviction | Deputy’s pill-chart testimony was hearsay and nonprobative | Sufficient; Sowell’s sworn admission that pill was hydrocodone was enough (chart was cumulative) |
| Use of prior-difficulties evidence / scope of admissibility | Aunt’s testimony of initial outcry admissible as prior difficulties and for proving offenses within limitations period | Trial court pretrial admitted testimony as prior-difficulties only; later allowing jury to consider it as proof of indicted offenses modified ruling and caused prejudice | Court agreed the trial court expanded admissibility improperly but found no harm — testimony admissible in either characterization and no manifest prejudice; convictions affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object to license/counsel remarks) | N/A | Trial counsel erred by not objecting to cross-exam about driver’s license and prosecutor comments on facts not in evidence | Denied: counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy (avoid appearing to hide evidence; not objecting was tactical); no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-pronged ineffective-assistance test)
- Johnston, 249 Ga. 413 (pretrial rulings on admissibility control later course unless modified to prevent manifest injustice)
- Chapman v. State, 273 Ga. 348 (ineffective-assistance standards as applied in Georgia)
- Maloney v. State, 317 Ga. App. 460 (testimony that defendant licked victim’s vagina sufficient for aggravated child molestation)