Watson v. State, 297 Ga. 718

Background

Patrick Watson was tried for two counts of sexual battery for touching his daughter’s breasts and pubic area when she was 11–13; jury convicted him of the lesser-included sexual battery counts.
The trial court instructed the jury that under Georgia law a person under 16 lacks legal capacity to consent to sexual conduct; defense objected.
Watson appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, treating his argument about statutory construction as a waived constitutional overbreadth challenge.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether age alone conclusively establishes lack of consent for the offense of sexual battery.
The sexual battery statute requires (1) intentional contact with intimate parts, (2) intent, and (3) lack of consent; sexual battery as codified may not necessarily involve "sexual conduct."
The Supreme Court reversed Watson’s sexual battery convictions because the jury instruction improperly relieved the State of proving lack of consent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a victim’s age (under 16) conclusively establishes lack of consent for sexual battery	Watson: statutory construction should require proof of lack of consent regardless of age; treating age as conclusive overbroadly criminalizes innocent contact	State: under prior Georgia law, minors under 16 lack capacity to consent to sexual conduct, so age conclusively proves lack of consent	Court: Age alone does not conclusively establish lack of consent for sexual battery; prosecution must prove lack of consent separately
Whether Watson’s argument was a waived constitutional overbreadth challenge	Watson: he argued for a narrower statutory construction, not a constitutional overbreadth challenge	State/Court of Appeals: treated argument as constitutional and waived because not raised below	Court: Watson’s claim is statutory construction, not a waived constitutional challenge; Court of Appeals erred in treating it as waived
Whether the trial court’s instruction was legally correct as given	Watson: instruction misstated law as applied to sexual battery and was misleading	State: instruction was an accurate statement that minors lack capacity to consent to sexual conduct	Court: instruction, though accurate about sexual conduct generally, was erroneous in the sexual battery charge because sexual battery does not necessarily involve sexual conduct and the jury must decide consent
Effect of the erroneous instruction on conviction	Watson: improper instruction relieved State of burden, requiring reversal	State: conviction should stand because instruction was accurate statement of law	Court: error was not harmless; convictions reversed

Key Cases Cited

Drake v. State, 239 Ga. 232 (recognized that a victim under the age of consent conclusively lacks consent for forcible rape)
Phagan v. State, 268 Ga. 272 (noting minors under 16 lack capacity to consent to sexual intercourse)
Chase v. State, 285 Ga. 693 (noting underage victims lack capacity to consent to sexual contact in sexual-assault context)
Haley v. State, 289 Ga. 515 (statutory construction should avoid criminalizing apparently innocent conduct)
State v. Caffee, 291 Ga. 31 (concurrence: retrial permitted when conviction reversed for trial error rather than insufficiency)