Vaughn v. State, 307 Ga. App. 754

Vaughn lived in the same house with two young victims, K.F. (5) and D.J. (2), during the alleged offenses in summer 2004.
The state introduced photographs of the girls nude and testimony that Vaughn touched them and took pictures of them unclothed.
Forensic interviews and a psychologist’s testimony indicated the girls consistently described Vaughn’s conduct; K.F. hesitated to testify in court.
Vaughn was charged with three counts of child molestation and three counts of sexual exploitation of children; other witnesses included family members and employers.
The defense argued insufficient evidence, evidentiary errors (late-disclosed witness), ineffective assistance, and trial court restrictions on testimony.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding enough evidence to support the convictions and no reversible error on the asserted issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for exploitation	Vaughn took photos and touched the girls; testimony credible.	Credibility issues and lack of corroboration undermine proof.	Sufficient evidence supports exploitation convictions.
Timeliness and prejudice of undisclosed witness	Disallowing witness harmed the State’s case; late disclosure was non-prejudicial.	Late disclosure and potential prejudice require exclusion.	No abuse of discretion; prejudice and bad faith not shown; exclusion affirmed.
Admission of prior conviction of a State witness	Conviction should have been admitted to impeach credibility.	Ruling was reconsidered; defense allowed to tender the conviction.	No reversible error; evidence properly handled.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to challenge competency, call experts, and pursue other avenues.	Counsel’s strategy was reasonable; objections and cross-examination addressed issues.	No reasonable probability outcome would differ; no ineffective assistance.
Limitation of appellate counsel’s questioning at new-trial hearing	Appellate counsel should be allowed to elicit full testimony to perfect the record.	Trial court properly limited scope; sufficient record remained of expert’s testimony.	No error; record shown to reflect expected testimony.

Herring v. State, 263 Ga.App. 470 (2003) (credibility and sufficiency when conflicts exist)
Vaughn v. State, 301 Ga.App. 391 (2009) (victim testimony alone can support conviction)
Acey v. State, 281 Ga.App. 197 (2006) (discretion in discovery and prejudice considerations)
Hill v. State, 232 Ga.App. 561 (1998) (late disclosure with possible prejudice requires careful scrutiny)
Falak v. State, 261 Ga.App. 404 (2003) (expert testimony not necessarily required when cross-examination suffices)
Goldstein v. State, 283 Ga.App. 1 (2006) (considers whether failure to call an expert is ineffective assistance)
Towry v. State, 304 Ga.App. 139 (2010) (proper handling of credibility and non-impeachment testimony)
Sims v. State, 281 Ga. 541 (2007) (meritless objections when objections would be futile)