Young v. State
327 Ga. App. 852
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Young responded to a Craigslist "Casual Encounters" ad placed by an undercover detective posing as a stepfather offering his two step-daughters (ages 12 and 14).
- Young exchanged multiple e-mails describing explicit sexual acts he intended to perform with the girls, attached a nude photo, negotiated a meeting at a hotel, and was arrested en route; condoms and other indicia were found in his car.
- He was indicted on six counts: two counts of Computer or Electronic Child Exploitation (use of computer to entice a person believed to be a child) and, for each fictitious victim, attempted aggravated child molestation and attempted child molestation.
- At trial the defense asserted entrapment and proffered expert testimony that Young lacked predisposition; the trial court excluded that expert opinion.
- The jury convicted Young on all counts; he moved for a new trial raising evidentiary, confrontation/presence, sufficiency, jury instruction, ineffective assistance, and sentencing/merger claims; the trial court denied relief and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Young's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of expert testimony on predisposition/entrapment | Dr. Davis would show Young lacked predisposition and support entrapment | Expert testimony on ultimate issue usurps the jury; jury must decide predisposition | Exclusion proper — expert invaded jury province; court affirmed exclusion (entrapment is for jury) |
| Right to be present at bench conferences during voir dire | Bench conferences held without him denied his constitutional right to be present | Young was in courtroom, counsel present, made no contemporaneous objection; waived review | Waived — no contemporaneous objection and claimant was present in courtroom; review refused |
| Sufficiency of evidence given defendants only communicated with an adult undercover agent/fictitious victims | Conviction improper because Young never communicated with a real minor or had physical contact | Solicitation/enticement can be via an intermediary; intent and substantial steps suffice even if victim fictitious | Evidence sufficient — conviction sustained; direct communication with an actual minor not required under statute as interpreted post-Cosmo reversal |
| Ineffective assistance / jury instructions / merger of counts | Counsel was unprepared, failed to object/preserve, sought improper instructions; multiple counts should merge because victims fictitious | Counsel’s choices were reasonable strategy; excluded expert properly; indictment alleged distinct acts against two named fictitious victims; attempts to different acts are distinct | Strickland standard not met; counsel’s strategy reasonable; instructions/read as whole not misleading; counts did not merge — convictions and sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. State, 326 Ga. App. 770 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (expert testimony on predisposition to molest children invades jury province)
- State v. Cosmo, 295 Ga. 76 (Ga. 2014) (direct communication with an actual minor not required; solicitation/enticement can be through an intermediary)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Watson v. State, 261 Ga. App. 562 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (waiver of appellate review where no contemporaneous objection to bench conferences)