Wadley v. State
317 Ga. App. 333
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wadley, an Albany Police Department investigator, previously dated the victim's mother and cared for the children under a DFACS safety plan in 2008.
- In September 2009 the victim disclosed acts by Wadley; the mother confronted Wadley and notified authorities; an acquaintance and a police officer testified to the reporting chain.
- The victim described in forensic interview that Wadley removed his clothes and moved on top of her, touching her with his body; Wadley was arrested and charged with one count of child molestation.
- Wadley was convicted on May 24, 2010; his trial counsel moved to disqualify the trial judge for bias, which was granted as to Wadley’s case only.
- A new trial was granted on bias and related proceedings; the trial court rejected arguments about sufficiency and hearsay under the Child Hearsay Statute.
- Facing a second trial, Wadley filed a plea in bar challenging double jeopardy and hearsay admissibility, which the trial court denied; Wadley appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction | Wadley argues insufficiency bar on retrial after reversal. | State contends evidence meets Jackson v. Virginia standard. | Evidence sufficient; retrial allowed if not barred by double jeopardy. |
| Whether child’s out-of-court statements violated the Child Hearsay Statute and confrontation rights | Hatley requires confrontation when child testifies; statements insufficient as sole proof. | State may introduce hearsay under OCGA 24-3-16 without placing child on stand per Hatley framework. | Retrial not barred; error may be cured by proper foundation; denial of plea in bar affirmed. |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct warrants double jeopardy bar | State’s closing remarks outside the record amount to misconduct to subvert trial process. | No showing of intent to subvert double jeopardy; misconduct not sufficient to bar retrial. | No double jeopardy bar; retrial not precluded based on prosecutorial misconduct. |
| Whether denial of bond after new trial was proper | Bond denial violated Ayala standards for flight risk. | Wa dley offers minimal argument and plans to brief further; rule requires argument and authority. | Claim deemed abandoned for lack of argument and authorities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ricketts v. Williams, 242 Ga. 303 (Ga. 1978) (double jeopardy and sufficiency interplay)
- Lively v. State, 262 Ga. 510 (Ga. 1992) (Jackson v. Virginia standard applied on review)
- Prather v. State, 303 Ga. App. 374 (Ga. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing weight of evidence)
- Hatley v. State, 290 Ga. 480 (Ga. 2012) (confrontation and child hearsay statute interpretation under 24-3-16)
- Hall v. State, 244 Ga. 86 (Ga. 1979) (use of otherwise inadmissible hearsay in retrial context)
- State v. D’Auria, 229 Ga. App. 34 (Ga. App. 1997) (post-reversal retrial rules under double jeopardy)
- Leonard v. State, 275 Ga. App. 667 (Ga. App. 2005) (standard of review for double jeopardy pleas)