State v. Williams, 308 Ga. 228

In 2015 Kenneth Williams was convicted of aggravated sexual battery and other offenses for repeatedly molesting his 4‑year‑old step‑granddaughter; forensic interview and family testimony described digital vaginal penetration.
At trial the court instructed the jury that aggravated sexual battery requires intentional penetration with a foreign object without consent, and also stated that a child under 16 cannot legally consent.
Williams did not object to that jury instruction at trial; the jury convicted him of aggravated sexual battery.
On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the aggravated sexual battery conviction, relying on Watson v. State and related appellate decisions (Duncan, Laster) that held the State must prove lack of consent even when the victim is under 16.
The State sought certiorari in the Georgia Supreme Court to resolve (1) whether lack of consent must be proved for aggravated sexual battery with an under‑16 victim and (2) whether the Court of Appeals properly applied the pipeline rule to reach those post‑trial decisions.
The Georgia Supreme Court held that Watson’s reasoning extends to aggravated sexual battery (lack of consent is an element), but because Williams did not object at trial and the evidentiary record overwhelmingly established nonconsent, the erroneous instruction did not constitute plain error and the conviction stands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Williams)	Held
Whether the State must prove lack of consent for aggravated sexual battery when victim is under 16	Either the instruction was legally correct or, if erroneous, any error was not plain or was harmless given the evidence	The jury instruction relieved the State of proving an essential element (lack of consent) contrary to Watson and related authority	Court: Lack of consent is a textual element of aggravated sexual battery; Watson applies, so State must prove lack of consent, even for victims under 16
Whether the Court of Appeals properly applied the "pipeline rule" to reverse despite no trial objection	Court of Appeals should not have reversed via pipeline rule without plain‑error review; the failure to object requires plain‑error standard and the error did not affect substantial rights here	Court of Appeals correctly applied Watson and reversed because instruction eliminated State’s burden	Court: Pipeline rule application was erroneous where defendant failed to object; plain‑error review applies and no plain error shown given overwhelming evidence of nonconsent; reversal was improper

Watson v. State, 297 Ga. 718 (recognizing lack of consent is a textual element of sexual battery and that an instruction that under‑16 cannot consent cannot be used to avoid proving consent)
Williams v. State, 347 Ga. App. 6 (Court of Appeals decision reversing the aggravated sexual battery conviction)
Duncan v. State, 342 Ga. App. 530 (applying Watson to aggravated sexual battery)
Laster v. State, 340 Ga. App. 96 (similar appellate extension of Watson)
Lupoe v. State, 300 Ga. 233 (plain error test explained)
Rainwater v. State, 300 Ga. 800 (plain error: effect on substantial rights inquiry)
Bozzie v. State, 302 Ga. 704 (distinguishing harmless‑error rules and burden when error is preserved vs plain error)
State v. Herrera‑Bustamante, 304 Ga. 259 (procedural discussion on objection and appellate review)