Williams v. State
319 Ga. App. 888
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Williams was convicted of two counts of child molestation, one count of sexual battery, and one count of aggravated child molestation.
- He appeals the trial court’s denial of ineffective assistance claims raised in his motion for new trial.
- An eight-year-old daughter of Williams’s girlfriend reported to several authorities that Williams had inserted his penis in her, prompting investigation.
- Williams claimed he only checked the child’s underwear for hygiene; he agreed to a stipulated polygraph that indicated deception.
- Medical testimony noted no genital trauma but did not negate the victim’s allegations; lack of trauma was not inconsistent with the charges.
- The defense raised four ineffective-assistance challenges and the court applied Strickland’s two-prong test in its analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hearsay objection to officer testimony | Williams: counsel should have objected to hearsay about mother’s statements. | Williams: any error was harmless due to cumulative admissible evidence. | Harmless error; cumulative evidence; no prejudice. |
| polygraph testimony regarding hygiene | Williams: counsel should have objected to opinion on hygiene invading jury credibility. | Williams: testimony was improper but non-prejudicial given later polygraph result and other evidence. | No prejudice; not unreasonable to not object; defense strategy valid. |
| Publication of entire polygraph tape | Williams: failure to object to full recording was ineffective assistance. | Williams: strategic choice not to object; tape shown in context; other evidence supported verdict. | Reasonable trial strategy; no deficient performance. |
| Failure to produce medical records timely under OCGA § 17-16-4 | Williams: exclusion of medical records due to late production prejudiced defense and showed ineffectiveness. | Williams: no reviewable prejudice without proffered records; records not admitted. | No reversible error; inability to review prejudice due to absence of proffer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. State, 318 Ga. App. 217 (Ga. App. 2012) (hearsay harmless when cumulative admissible evidence exists)
- Moody v. State, 277 Ga. 676 (Ga. 2004) (harmless error where hearsay is cumulative)
- Ashmid v. State, 316 Ga. App. 550 (Ga. App. 2012) (cumulative evidence; ineffective assistance not shown)
- Allen v. State, 281 Ga. App. 294 (Ga. App. 2006) (trial strategy; objections are strategic choices)
- Holmes v. State, 271 Ga. App. 122 (Ga. App. 2004) (trial strategy; not every decision is deficient)
- Peterson v. State, 282 Ga. 286 (Ga. 2007) (overcoming presumption of reasonable strategy required to show deficient performance)
- Morgan v. State, 275 Ga. 222 (Ga. 2002) (burden on defendant when trial counsel did not testify)
- Hazelrigs v. State, 255 Ga. App. 784 (Ga. App. 2002) (differences of strategy; appellate deference to trial counsel)
- Brown v. State, 175 Ga. App. 246 (Ga. App. 1985) (polygraph results probative upon stipulation; other polygraph evidence may be inadmissible)
- Philpot v. State, 311 Ga. App. 486 (Ga. App. 2011) (standards for ineffective assistance review in Georgia)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)