Weaver v. the State
336 Ga. App. 206
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Rodney Weaver was convicted by a jury of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, and child molestation for sexually abusing a 12‑year‑old victim.
- During jury deliberations a juror sent notes to the judge; the judge replied in writing while Weaver and counsel were absent, instructing the jury to continue deliberating until the matter could be addressed in open court.
- Weaver and counsel were informed of the notes and the judge’s written responses shortly thereafter; the judge then summoned the juror and foreperson, questioned them in open court, and returned them to continue deliberations; no objections were made at trial.
- Weaver argued on appeal that (1) the judge’s communications violated his right to be present and right to counsel, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain witness testimony, and (3) the judge commented on his guilt during juror questioning.
- The Court of Appeals concluded Weaver waived the right‑to‑be‑present claim, found any right‑to‑counsel error (assumed) harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, rejected the ineffective‑assistance claims, and held the judge did not impermissibly express an opinion on guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Weaver's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court communicated with jury during deliberations in absence of defendant/counsel | Communication violated Weaver’s right to be present | Weaver and counsel were informed promptly and failed to object; right can be waived | Waiver: Weaver waived appellate review by not objecting at trial |
| Trial court responded to juror notes without prior notice to counsel (right to counsel) | Failure to notify deprived Weaver of right to counsel | Any error was harmless because judge’s responses preserved status quo and did not address substance | Even assuming error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to witness testimony as addressing ultimate issue | Counsel should have objected to forensic interviewer recommending counseling as invading jury’s province | Interviewer did not opine on ultimate issue; recommendation was permissible testimony | Not deficient: objections would be meritless, so no ineffective assistance |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to testimony bolstering victim’s credibility | Counsel should have objected to testimony that the victim was consistent/truthful | Testimony noted consistency, did not opine that victim was believable or truthful | No ineffective assistance: testimony admissible and did not directly vouch for credibility |
| Trial judge's questioning of juror implied opinion of guilt | Judge’s questions revealed juror had written “not guilty” earlier, argued this showed judge commented on guilt | Judge sought clarification about juror’s mindset and whether she kept an open mind | No error: questions were clarifying, not a comment or intimation of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Hudson v. State, 309 Ga. App. 580 (application of Jackson sufficiency review in child abuse case)
- Hanifa v. State, 269 Ga. 797 (defendant’s presence for judge/jury communications; waiver rule)
- Fuller v. State, 277 Ga. 505 (right to be present can be waived by failure to object)
- Lowery v. State, 282 Ga. 68 (assumed right to counsel for jury communications; harmless‑error framework)
- Logan v. State, 266 Ga. 566 (harmlessness of judge–jury communications that do not affect verdict)
- Lamar v. State, 297 Ga. 89 (distinguishing permissible testimony from impermissible opinion on ultimate issue)
- Canty v. State, 318 Ga. App. 13 (witness may not vouch for victim’s credibility)
- Carter v. State, 320 Ga. App. 454 (consistency testimony differs from opinion on truthfulness)
- Scott v. State, 332 Ga. App. 559 (failure to object to meritless evidentiary claim does not establish ineffective assistance)