336 Ga. App. 884
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Steve Sutton, grandfather of two girls (A.J. and C.S.), convicted of six counts of child molestation and one count aggravated child molestation; appeal from denial of new trial.
- Allegations: repeated sexual touching of C.S. at age ~10–11; separate incident years later where Sutton placed "glue" on four-year-old A.J. and touched her.
- State moved in limine to exclude A.J.’s prior sexual history with another child under the Rape Shield statute; trial court granted motion but warned the State not to invite the subject.
- Recorded interview: A.J. initially referenced another child as the one who put "glue" on her, then immediately corrected herself to identify Sutton; Sutton sought to play that portion to impeach A.J.
- Trial court excluded A.J.’s fleeting misstatement as barred prior sexual history; also denied Sutton’s motion to sever counts relating to the two victims.
- Court of Appeals affirms: exclusion proper because statement reflected momentary confusion, not admissible prior act or impeachment; severance unnecessary because offenses were admissible as similar transactions and case was not too complex.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of A.J.’s statement naming another child | State: statement is prior sexual history barred by OCGA § 24-2-3 | Sutton: statement admissible to impeach (prior inconsistent) | Exclusion affirmed; statement was a momentary misstatement corrected immediately and not covered by impeachment exception |
| Severance of counts for two victims | State: joinder proper because evidence of one would be admissible in trial of the other as similar transactions | Sutton: offenses were remote/different and prejudicial; required separate trials | Denial affirmed; offenses showed common motive/bent of mind and would be admissible as similar transaction evidence |
| Harmless error claim regarding excluded misstatement | State: exclusion harmless because A.J. consistently identified Sutton | Sutton: exclusion prejudiced defense | Court: any error in excluding fleeting misstatement would be harmless; conviction stands |
| Abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary/severance rulings | — | — | Court reviews for abuse of discretion and finds none |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. State, 294 Ga. App. 159 (discussing standard of review and viewing evidence in favor of jury verdict)
- Blackwell v. State, 229 Ga. App. 452 (prior unrelated molestation evidence generally inadmissible to show victim confusion)
- Tidwell v. State, 219 Ga. App. 233 (exceptions for child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome or medical testimony)
- Berry v. State, 235 Ga. App. 35 (prior false allegations may be admissible to show lack of credibility)
- Gautreaux v. State, 314 Ga. App. 103 (abuse of discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- Gilbert v. State, 163 Ga. App. 688 (standard for severance review)
- Machiavello v. State, 308 Ga. App. 772 (mandatory severance when joined solely for similar character; discretion otherwise)
- Stepho v. State, 312 Ga. App. 495 (similar transaction admissible to show motive, bent of mind, familial access)
- Wright v. State, 259 Ga. App. 74 (similar transaction evidence admissible despite differences in victims/acts)
- Collins v. State, 310 Ga. App. 613 (differences in victims’ ages and acts do not preclude similar transaction evidence)
- Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292 (harmless error doctrine)
- Wagner v. State, 253 Ga. App. 874 (distinguished; relied on dicta not controlling)