Jаmes R. Altman appeals his conviction of sexual battery and child molestation of his granddaughter. He enumerates six errors. Held:
1. Appellant contends the trial court erred by admitting testimony of Ms. Nelie “Granny” Gillis that bolstered the victim’s credibility. Gillis testified to prior events that at least partially corroborated the victim’s testimony; during her testimony she volunteered statements in the presence of the jury to the effect that everyone knew her, shе wanted to tell the truth and would not lie, and that the victim would never lie to her about anything. There was no timely and specific objection made at trial to this testimony on the grounds of improper bolstering. Accordingly, this issue is not preserved for appellate review.
Simms v. State,
2. Appellant contends the trial court erred in allowing certain testimony of prior sexual conduct of appellant, by Ms. Chapman, another granddaughter of appellant, to be heard by the jury. Appellant particularly asserts that the State failed to comply with the requirements of Uniform Superior Court Rulе 31.3 (B) and
Williams v. State,
Examination of the trial transcript reveals that, although appellant had previously objected to and the trial court had sustained аn objection to the admission of similar transaction evidence, the testi
mony of which appellant complains was introduced as rebuttal testimony following the testimony of appellant. At the time this evidence was actually presented, appellant elected not to pose a timely and specific objection to its admission in evidence. Further, the record does not reveal that appellant had a continuing objection authorized as to the admission of this evidence. See generally
State v. Larocque,
3. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his mistrial motion after the victim testified that appellant committed oral sodomy on her when she was sleeping in her nightgown in the guest bedroom.
Following the testimony of the victim, the State asked and the victim answered two more questions before appellant called for an out-of-cоurt hearing and tendered his mistrial motion. As neither the request nor the motion was made immediately following the allegedly improper testimony, the issue was waived.
Dye v. State,
Assuming the issue had been preserved for appellate review, we are satisfied that the trial court did not err in ruling that the testimony was part of the res gestae of the criminal transaction at issue. Compare
Burton v. State,
Additionally, assuming arguendo error had resulted, it would
have been “harmless under the standards of
Johnson v. State,
4. When a defendant is charged with sexual offenses, pornographic videotaрes and pictures found lawfully in his possession are relevant and admissible, after a sufficient foundation has been laid, to show defendant’s lustful disposition.
Miller v. State,
The fact that one of the videotapes depicted an incestuous relationship between siblings and their parents does not alter this hоlding. Moreover, appellant’s possession of one particular movie depicting an incestuous relationship, which “started out by the brоther having sex with the daughter,” had additional relevancy as it would partially corroborate the victim’s testimony that appellant had shown her x-rated movies and that one of those movies “was like an incest movie. . . . Because his daughter was doing his brother and all that.” If evidence is comрetent for any purpose, it is not erroneous to admit it; even evidence of doubtful relevancy or competency should be admitted and its weight left to the jurors.
Norman v. State,
5. On appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorablе to support the verdict, and appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.
Grant v. State,
6. The trial court initially charged the jury erroneously that the statute of limitation period was three years fоr child molestation. The jury commenced deliberation; however, before any verdict was reached, the trial court recalled the jury and gave them a corrected charge as to the statute of limitation period for the child molestation counts at issue. The trial court сan call the jury back in from its deliberation for curative instruction; generally, the trial court may correct errors in a charge by calling attention to the erroneous parts of the charge and giving the jury the correct rule.
Tuggle v. State,
165
Ga. App. 53, 54 (1) (
Judgment affirmed.