Wiggins v. State
338 Ga. App. 273
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Rebecca Wiggins was convicted by a jury of sexual exploitation of children, aggravated sodomy, child molestation, and cruelty to children; this Court previously vacated and remanded for the trial court to apply the proper general‑grounds standard (Wiggins I).
- Victim testified Wiggins repeatedly took her to David Ray’s house, stayed while Ray sexually assaulted her, bathed her, and received payment; Ray later died by suicide and was not tried.
- At trial the State introduced testimony that Wiggins told the child she had herself been molested as a child; the State’s child‑abuse expert (Dotterweich) testified about disclosure/therapy practices.
- Midtrial the State sought to play jailhouse phone recordings between Wiggins and Jason Blanpied; the prosecutor suggested those tapes implicated possible misconduct by defense counsel; tapes played over objections and without a proven legal marriage for marital privilege.
- Defense moved for mistrial on multiple grounds (juror misconduct, prosecutor’s threats regarding counsel, bolstering/opinion testimony, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims); trial court denied mistrials but removed the implicated juror before deliberations; the trial court on remand denied Wiggins’ motion for new trial on the general grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wiggins) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Wiggins’ statements that she had been molested | Statements were prejudicial character evidence and hearsay; should be excluded | Statements were res gestae and relevant to intent/knowledge; admissible despite incidental character implication | Admitted: court found statements part of res gestae and relevant to intent/knowledge; no error in admission |
| Leading questions during direct exam of victim | Prosecutor improperly led the child with suggestive questions | Questions inquired into single facts and did not suggest answers | No abuse of discretion: questions not leading |
| Juror misconduct (juror spoke to State expert) / mistrial | Contact tainted jury; mistrial required or juror removal needed | Communication was minor, jurors corrected conduct, jurors affirmed impartiality; presumption of prejudice rebutted | Denial of mistrial affirmed; trial court reasonably found no prejudice and removed the juror later |
| Expert testimony (bolstering / ultimate issue) | Expert vouched for credibility and invaded jury’s role in assessing truth | Testimony explained disclosure/therapy processes and why certain questions were asked, not an opinion on truth of victim | Overruling objections proper: testimony contextual and explanatory, not impermissible bolstering of the victim’s credibility |
| Jailhouse tapes & marital privilege | Tapes inadmissible under marital privilege; admission violated confrontation/Fifth/Sixth rights and was hearsay | Existence of legal marriage not established; privilege not proven; many objections not preserved | Admission upheld: Wiggins failed to prove marital privilege; other objections mostly waived for lack of timely trial objections |
| Prosecutor’s threats of prosecuting defense counsel based on tapes / motion for mistrial | Threats impaired counsel, created conflict, and rendered counsel ineffective; mistrial required | Record shows counsel acted zealously; no objective deficient performance and no proven conflict affecting representation | Denial of mistrial and ineffective assistance claim affirmed: Wiggins failed Strickland first prong (no demonstrable deficient conduct) |
| Failure to advise re: maximum penalties (ineffective assistance re plea decisions) | Counsel didn’t inform Wiggins of maximum exposure (life sentence), so she would have accepted a plea | Counsel reviewed indictment and warned of potential life exposure; defendant’s post‑trial testimony not credible and inconsistent | Trial court’s factual finding supported; no Strickland prejudice shown; ineffective assistance claim denied |
| Remand claim that trial court undervalued defense expert on general grounds | Trial court ignored or gave insufficient weight to defense expert, warranting new trial | On remand review must apply Jackson v. Virginia standard; prior sufficiency ruling controls | Denied: law‑of‑the‑case and Jackson standard apply; evidence viewed for sufficiency supports verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. State, 295 Ga. 709 (discretionary review of evidence and balancing relevance vs. prejudice)
- Young v. State, 290 Ga. 392 (prior acts or admissions relevant to motive/intent even if character implicated)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Russell v. State, 293 Ga. 526 (improper juror communication raises presumption of prejudice; State may rebut)
- Ware v. State, 308 Ga. App. 24 (statements by defendant during commission admissible as res gestae)
- Brown v. State, 314 Ga. App. 198 (standard of review for mistrial denial and juror misconduct analysis)