Wright v. State
327 Ga. App. 658
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Cecil Ray Wright was convicted by a jury of one count of child molestation based on the victim’s testimony and a recorded child advocacy interview.
- At a gathering to help the victim’s aunt move, the victim’s fellow child (S.A.) told the aunt in the victim’s presence that the victim said Wright put his hand in her pants; the victim, crying, answered “yeah.”
- The aunt testified at trial describing that bathroom outcry, the victim’s demeanor, and her own reaction (including that she “knew” after hearing the outcry).
- S.A. also testified at trial about the victim’s outcry; the victim testified and her recorded interview was played for the jury.
- Wright argued on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the aunt’s testimony as improper bolstering, commentary on the ultimate issue, and hearsay; he also argued cumulative prejudice.
- The Court affirmed, holding the aunt’s testimony was not bolstering or an impermissible comment on the ultimate issue, and any hearsay error was harmless/cumulative; thus no Strickland prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improper bolstering of victim | Wright: aunt’s statements vouched for victim, bolstering credibility | State: aunt described outcry and demeanor, not the victim’s truthfulness | Not bolstering — aunt described circumstances/demeanor; no direct credibility claim |
| Commenting on ultimate issue | Wright: aunt’s reaction/opinion suggested defendant’s guilt | State: aunt testified as fact witness about observations/reaction, not guilt | Not an improper comment on ultimate issue; admissible fact testimony |
| Hearsay (S.A.’s statement to aunt) | Wright: aunt repeated S.A.’s outcry — hearsay inadmissible | State: S.A. testified; child-hearsay statute admissible; aunt’s account cumulative | Any hearsay admission harmless/cumulative given S.A.’s and victim’s testimony |
| Cumulative ineffective-assistance claim | Wright: combined failures caused prejudice | State: two alleged errors were not deficient; third was harmless | No cumulative prejudice under Strickland; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hayes v. State, 262 Ga. 881 (failure to make meritless objection not ineffective assistance)
- Dubose v. State, 294 Ga. 579 (opinion testimony on ultimate issues generally inadmissible under prior code)
- Noe v. State, 287 Ga. App. 728 (prohibition on witnesses bolstering another witness’s credibility)
- Clemmons v. State, 282 Ga. App. 261 (cumulative testimony harmless when duplicative of admissible evidence)