Stephens v. State, 289 Ga. 758

Stephens convicted of incest against his step-daughter, with abuse from age five to sixteen, culminating in impregnation and abortion.
Sentence: 20 years total—10 in confinement, 10 on probation, with numerous special conditions.
Court of Appeals affirmed conviction but remanded for resentencing due to erroneous special-probation conditions tied to parole.
Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to address (1) jury instruction on prior consistent statements, and (2) whether Court of Appeals erred upholding special-probation conditions.
Pattern jury instruction on prior consistent statements should not be given as a matter of course; in this case the instruction was harmless. Court upheld the trial court’s process and the resulting special-probation conditions; Stephens will be resentenced due to earlier parole-condition error.
Judgment affirmed on the issues presented; pattern instruction disapproved as a blanket rule, but harmless here; special-probation conditions upheld and properly linked to the sentence and rehabilitation goals, with resentencing for the probation/parole process error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should the pattern instruction be given routinely?	Stephens	State	Should not be given routinely; harmless in this case.
Are the trial court’s amendments to probation conditions valid?	Stephens	State	Upheld; amendments do not add punishment and comply with statutory authority; due process not violated.

Cuzzort v. State, 254 Ga. 745 (1985) (prior consistent statements admissible as substantive evidence)
Johnson v. State, 289 Ga. 106 (2011) (prior consistent statement pattern instruction discussed)
Boyt v. State, 286 Ga.App. 460 (2007) (better practice to avoid pattern instruction for prior consistent statements)
Inman v. State, 124 Ga.App. 190 (1971) (double jeopardy considerations in probation context)
Hollie v. State, 287 Ga. 389 (2010) (probation conditions and related due process considerations)