Defendant, the stepfather of the two victims, appeals his conviction of statutory rape of one sister, OCGA § 16-6-3, and child molestation of the other, OCGA § 16-6-4 (a & b).
1. Defense counsel was cross-examining a police officer as to defendant’s statement which began “Dear Judge.” After counsel was reprimanded for expressing his disbelief of the officer’s testimony that there had been statements by others which began similarly, defense counsel inquired how the statement got that heading. The officer stated: “He told me during this entire time, when — my job as an investigator is to determine what had happened and if this thing did happen, reduce it to writing. My opinion during this period of time I was convinced that he did do it, that it did happen ...” Motion for mistrial was made immediately and a hearing was conducted out of the presence of the jury. Following the hearing, the jury was instructed that they were the ones to decide the question of defendant’s guilt or innocence, not a witness, and they should disregard entirely the response by the witness. The motion for mistrial was renewed and denied.
Defendant contends the testimony was so prejudicial that a mistrial should have been granted. While a witness’ opinion as to an accused’s guilt may be inadmissible
(Frink v. Southern Express Co.,
2. During the direct examination of a psychologist who examined the two sisters the state sought to elicit whether one of them was suffering from “sexual abuse syndrome.” Defendant objected on the grounds this was irrelevant and immaterial. The trial court overruled the objection, but the prosecuting attorney than asked the witness whether she found the appearance and assessment made of the victim to be consistent with that of a sexually abused child. No further objection was made.
For several reasons there is no basis for reversal. 1) The objection was insufficient to raise any question as to the admissibility of the evidence.
Harrison v. State,
3. Defendant contends it was error to deny his motion for mistrial because the court’s questioning of one of the victims amounted to reforming the witness.
“ ‘The trial judge has the right to propound a question or a series of questions to any witness for the purpose of developing fully the truth of the case; and the extent to which the examination conducted by the court shall go is a matter within his discretion.’ ”
Beavers v. State,
Here the questions were propounded outside the presence of the jury.
Jones v. State,
4. Defendant complains of the admission of his statements. The trial court conducted a
Jackson v. Denno,
5. Defendant contends the court erred in charging OCGA § 16-3-4 (c) without additional embellishments concerning when voluntary intoxication might be an excuse. See
Blankenship v. State,
Furthermore, absent a written request, a correct charge on the law is not error because it fails to embody other pertinent and appropriate principles.
Roberts v. State,
6. Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions because of lack of corroboration.
(a) A conviction for child molestation requires no corroboration of the victim’s testimony.
Baker v. State,
(b) While statutory rape does mandate that the victim’s testimony be corroborated, construing the evidence in favor of the verdict, there was sufficient corroboration, including the defendant’s inculpatory statements,
(Wright v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
