Palmer v. the StatePalmer v. the State
A jury found Timothy Palmer guilty of two counts of aggravated child molestation and one count of statutory rape,1 and the trial court denied his motion for a new trial. On appeal, Palmer contends that the trial court committed reversible error in violation of
1. At trial, in addition to the testimony of the child victim, the State introduced into evidence and played for the jury a video recording of the victim‘s forensic interview. The victim‘s mother and
A statement made by a child under the age of 14 years describing any act of sexual contact or physical abuse performed with or on the child by another shall be admissible in evidence by the testimony of the person to whom made if the child is available to testify in the proceedings and if the court finds that the circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability.
(Emphasis supplied.) See
Palmer contends that the trial court‘s instruction, in light of the language informing the jury that the court found that the circumstances of the child‘s statements had “sufficient indicia of reliability,” constituted an improper comment on the evidence in violation of
“It is error for any judge in any criminal case, during its progress or in his charge to the jury, to express or intimate his opinion as to what has or has not been proved or as to the guilt of the accused.”
In Rolland, 296 Ga. App. at 890-891, and Starr, 269 Ga. App. at 466-468 (1), the trial court gave virtually the same jury instruction on statements of a child describing sexual contact or physical abuse, and we considered a similar claim that the instruction violated
Based on this binding precedent, we conclude that the trial court‘s jury instruction violated
2. Given our decision in Division 1, we need not address Palmer‘s claim that the State failed to prove venue for one of the aggravated child molestation counts.4 The remedy for the failure to prove venue is to reverse and remand for a new trial if the State otherwise presented sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant committed the crime. See Powers v. State, 309 Ga. App. 262, 264 (1) (709 SE2d 821) (2011). Here, the evidence was sufficient to prove that Palmer committed the alleged act of aggravated child molestation; therefore, retrial is not barred by Double Jeopardy considerations. See Jones v. State, 272 Ga. 900, 905 (4) (537 SE2d 80) (2000). And because the remedy for failing to prove venue would be a retrial, which we already held in Division 1 must occur in this case, we need not resolve the venue question raised by Palmer in this enumeration of error.
Judgment reversed and case remanded. Boggs and Branch, JJ., concur.