Taylor v. the State
334 Ga. App. 12
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- John Taylor, the mother's boyfriend, lived with two minor girls and was charged with one count of child molestation for having 12-year-old N.M. masturbate him to ejaculation.
- N.M. disclosed the abuse to her sister and mother and described the events in a videotaped forensic interview.
- Taylor made oral admissions during a pre-polygraph interview and later gave a written admission describing the acts.
- He was indicted, tried before a jury, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years; his post-trial motion for a new trial was denied.
- On appeal, Taylor challenged (1) the forensic interviewer’s testimony about whether objective evidence was consistent with the victim’s account as impermissible ultimate-issue testimony under OCGA § 24-7-704, and (2) the trial court’s reasonable-doubt jury instruction that used “and” ("wavering, unsettled and unsatisfied") instead of the pattern "or."
Issues
| Issue | Taylor's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forensic interviewer gave improper ultimate-issue testimony | Testimony opined on an ultimate issue beyond permissible expert scope | Even if error, testimony was harmless given overwhelming evidence, including Taylor’s admissions | Any error, assumed arguendo, was harmless and not reversible because of overwhelming evidence |
| Reasonable-doubt instruction used “and” rather than “or” | Use of “and” could require jurors to satisfy three states of mind, lowering the State’s burden | The phrases were synonyms describing one state of doubt; charge viewed as whole did not mislead jury | No reversible error; charge not reasonably likely to have misled jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Williams v. State, 330 Ga. App. 606 (upholding harmless-error analysis where admissions supported conviction)
- Roman v. State, 155 Ga. App. 355 (explaining "wavering, unsettled and unsatisfied" are synonyms, not conjunctive requirements)
- Davis v. State, 168 Ga. App. 272 (similar holding that such reasonable-doubt language did not mislead jury)
- Anderson v. State, 286 Ga. 57 (court must view instructions as a whole; no reasonable likelihood jury misunderstood burden)