Whorton v. State
318 Ga. App. 885
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Whorton lived with his daughter, granddaughter G.G., and grandsons in Canada to care for the children during the mother’s daytime work.
- During trips from Canada to Jones County, Georgia, Whorton and G.G. stayed in hotels after a truck transmission failure and Whorton showed her pornography.
- On at least one trip to Jones County, Whorton undressed G.G., subjected her to sexual acts, and in another incident attempted intercourse but could not maintain an erection.
- After G.G. turned 13, Whorton lived with the family again, allegedly attempting intercourse, fondling, and forcing her to watch pornography; he also punished her with pinching or squeezing.
- G.G. disclosed abuse after leaving Whorton’s residence; a Crescent House examination found hymenal scarring consistent with sexual abuse.
- Whorton was charged with multiple offenses including enticing a child for indecent purposes, multiple counts of child molestation, and related charges; he was acquitted on three counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count 1 | Whorton argues there was no asportation into a bedroom. | State contends asportation shown via Whorton’s calls to bedroom with G.G. and showing pornography. | Evidence sufficient; asportation proven; Count 1 affirmed. |
| General sufficiency of remaining convictions | G.G.'s memory inconsistencies undermine credibility and corroboration is lacking. | Credibility for juries; victim testimony alone can establish molestation; expert corroboration present. | Sufficient evidence; convictions upheld. |
| Denial of continuance | Denial prejudiced Whorton by hindering expert preparation. | Counsel accepted representation with trial date; case not convoluted; no shown harm. | No reversible error; denial affirmed. |
| Limiting instruction on similar transactions; ineffective assistance | Should have given limiting instruction regarding prior act evidence; ineffective to fail to object. | Record insufficient to challenge; defense counsel strategy reasonable; Rape Shield concerns. | Error not shown; limitations issue waived; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanson v. State, 305 Ga. App. 900 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (victim testimony alone may establish molestation)
- Henderson v. State, 303 Ga. App. 531 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (no evidence of taking or asportation where defendant joins victims in room)
- Sapp v. State, 290 Ga. 247 (Ga. 2011) (plain errors not necessary for this appeal given timing)
- Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628 (Ga. 1999) (flight evidence analysis and limiting instructions context)
- Patterson v. State, 272 Ga. App. 675 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (directed-verdict standard when evidence supports conviction)
- Wright v. State, 274 Ga. 730 (Ga. 2002) (ineffective assistance framework; standard applied)
- Clewis v. State, 293 Ga. App. 412 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (equal access doctrine to possession crimes; not applicable here)
- Renner v. State, 260 Ga. 515 (Ga. 1990) (flight as prosecutorial theme; court disallows jury instruction on flight)
- Gant v. State, 313 Ga. App. 329 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (contextual note on similar-transaction vs. prior difficulties)
- Holloway v. State, 278 Ga. App. 709 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (general evidentiary principles for witness credibility)