Flowers v. StateFlowers v. State
A Lowndes County jury convicted Jerry Flowers of rape,
Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
1
the record shows the following facts. On January 12, 2001, at approximately 11:30 p.m., the victim was talking to her mother on the telephone when she heard a knock on the door. When she answered the door, Flowers pushed his way inside. The victim recognized Flowers but did not know his name. Flowers told the victim he wanted to “eat [her] p — y,” and she told him to leave. The victim repeatedly and explicitly told Flowers not to touch her and that she did not want to have any sort of sexual relations with him. When Flowers refused to leave, the victim tried to call 911. Flowers began choking her and holding her out of
1. Flowers contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of other bad acts, specifically, evidence that Flowers raped another woman. Although the conduct of an accused in other transactions is generally irrelevant,
2
the admissibility of evidence of similar transactions is contingent upon three affirmative showings: “(1) the evidence must be admitted for a proper purpose; (2) there must be sufficient evidence to establish the accused committed the independent act; and (3) there must be a sufficient connection or similarity between the independent offense and the crime charged so that proof of the former tends to prove the latter.” (Citation omitted.)
Gardner v. State,
The previous victim testified that on January 7, 2001, just days before the charged offense, as she was unlocking the door to her home at approximately 11:15 p.m., Flowers knocked her to the ground and then carried her into her living room. The woman was acquainted with Flowers. Flowers removed her clothes and said, “since you don’t want to give up no p----y, I’m going to take it.” Flowers raped the woman and then left her house. He was wearing a black jacket, black pants, and a black stocking cap. At trial, the State offered the previous victim’s testimony to show Flowers’ bent of mind and lustful disposition. The trial court noted the following similarities between the two crimes: the rapes occurred during the same week and at the same time of night; the rapes occurred in homes in the same neighborhood; Flowers was wearing similar clothing each time; each victim was familiar with Flowers; each rape occurred after Flowers pushed his way uninvited into the victim’s home; and Flowers used similar language in demanding sex from each victim. Finding the crimes sufficiently similar and offered for a legitimate purpose, the trial court admitted evidence of the similar transaction.
Flowers claims the evidence was not admitted for a proper purpose and was not sufficiently similar to the charged offense. Flowers’ brief, however, presents no legal analysis explaining why the stated purpose for admitting the evidence was not proper or how the other rape was too dissimilar to the charged offense to be admitted. Based on our examination of the record, we conclude the trial court’s finding that the State satisfied the three-prong test was not clearly erroneous.
Rowe v. State,
In addition, Flowers suggests the admission of similar transaction evidence, particularly in rape cases, runs afoul of the United States and Georgia Constitutions. Flowers failed to articulate any basis for such a conclusion and failed to cite any legal authority for his position. As we have explained, legal analysis “is, at a minimum, a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Higgins v. State,
Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the similar transaction evidence.
Rowe v. State,
2. Flowers contends the evidence was insufficient to convict him of rape, arguing, in essence, that there was no evidence that the act of sexual intercourse occurred forcibly and against the victim’s will. On appeal, this Court reviews the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence.
Jackson v. Virginia,
In arguing that the record demanded a finding that the victim consented to have intercourse with him, Flowers sneeringly contends that “casual sex is a part of the victim’s lifestyle,” citing the victim’s “drawer full of condoms” and her acquiescence in Flowers’ demand that she remove her clothes and position herself a certain way on the bed. See
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Jackson v. Virginia,
See
See
Williams v. State,