The State v. Crist
341 Ga. App. 411
Ga. Ct. App.2017Background
- Carl Crist was tried for three counts of sexual battery and three counts of child molestation based on allegations his then-14-year-old stepdaughter D.M. was repeatedly touched on breasts, buttocks, and vagina beginning when she was about 9–10.
- The jury convicted Crist on the three sexual-battery counts and acquitted him on the child-molestation counts.
- At trial the court read the indictment, instructed the jury about burden of proof, gave written jury instructions (which included the sexual-battery elements) and sent those written instructions into deliberations, but inadvertently omitted orally instructing on the elements of sexual battery at closing.
- Crist moved for a new trial arguing the omission of the oral element of lack of consent was plain error; the trial court granted the new trial, finding the omission affected his substantial rights and fairness of proceedings.
- The State appealed, arguing Crist failed to carry his burden to show plain error because the indictment was read, the jury was instructed that each element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the correct written instructions (including sexual battery) were provided to the jury.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of a new trial, holding that, taken as a whole, the oral and written instructions (and the read indictment) adequately informed the jury and Crist did not show the omission likely affected the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to orally instruct jury on sexual-battery elements at closing constituted plain error | State: Trial court erred in granting new trial; omission did not likely affect outcome because indictment was read and written instructions were provided | Crist: Omission of oral instruction on lack of consent was plain error affecting substantial rights and fairness | Court: No plain error — instructions read as a whole (indictment read, burden explained, and written instructions sent out) adequately informed jury; reversal of new-trial grant |
| Who bears burden to show plain error | State: Burden is on defendant to prove plain error affected outcome | Crist: Trial court shifted burden to State by refusing to presume jury read written instructions | Court: Defendant bears burden; trial court erred in requiring State to disprove prejudice |
| Whether written instructions and indictment can cure an omitted oral element | State: Yes — reading of indictment, instruction on burden, and written charge cure omission | Crist: Written charge insufficient; oral charge must include essential elements contemporaneously | Court: Yes — when considered together, oral and written materials sufficiently conveyed elements, so omission not prejudicial |
| Whether acquittals on related counts indicate jury understood law | State: Acquittals on child-molestation counts show jury properly applied law | Crist: Not dispositive because sexual-battery element was critical and in dispute | Court: Acquittals support conclusion jury understood law and evidence; does not show prejudicial error |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. State, 297 Ga. 718 (Ga. 2015) (defines sexual battery statute and elements)
- Anderson v. State, 299 Ga. 193 (Ga. 2016) (no plain error where omitted element was in indictment read to jury and provided during deliberations)
- Kelly v. State, 290 Ga. 29 (Ga. 2011) (adopts four-part plain-error test paralleling federal standard)
- Stanbury v. State, 299 Ga. 125 (Ga. 2016) (plain error where omitted instruction was critical to assessing bedrock testimony)
- Alvarez v. State, 299 Ga. 213 (Ga. 2016) (plain error where court failed to give instruction on justification when that defense was central)
- Miner v. State, 268 Ga. 67 (Ga. 1997) (written correct instructions can cure omission in oral charge)
- Hamrick v. State, 304 Ga. App. 378 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (victim testimony of touching private part sufficient for sexual-battery conviction)