Dennis Rolland was found guilty by a jury of aggravated assault; kidnapping with bodily injury; two counts of kidnapping; two counts
*890
of misdemeanor cruelty to children in the third degree; and оbstruction of a 911 telephone call. Rolland does not dispute the fact that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts. His sole claim оn appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error in violatiоn of OCGA § 17-8-57 by giving a jury charge in which the judge expressed an opinion that statements mаde by a witness for the State were reliable or true. Because we found in
Starr v. State,
The State presented evidence that Rolland assaulted thе victim with a knife; prevented the victim from making a 911 call; and inflicted bodily injury on the victim while kidnapping her and her two minor children and forcing them into his car. Evidence was also presented that Rolland knowingly allowed the children to see аnd hear his assault and kidnapping of their mother. In addition to testimony from the victim, the State presented testimony from a police officer pursuant to the child hearsay statute (OCGA § 24-3-16) that one of the minor children, the victim’s five-year-old daughter, told him that she saw Rolland hitting her mother and that her mother fell out of the cаr and got hurt. During rebuttal, the State presented testimony from the same daughter that she saw Rolland hit her mother and stab her mother with a knife.
As part of its final charge tо the jury at the close of evidence, the trial judge gave an instruction at thе State’s request which substantially tracked the language of OCGA § 24-3-16:
I charge you that а statement made by a child under the age of fourteen years describing any рhysical abuse performed with or on the child by another or performed with or on another in the presence of the child is admissible in evidence by the tеstimony of the person or persons to whom made if the child is available tо testify and the court finds that the circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability.
Rolland contends that instructing the jury that the minor child’s statemеnt to the police officer was admitted into evidence because the court found it had “sufficient indicia of reliability” constituted an expression of opinion by the judge as to what had been proved in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57. In
Starr,
[i]t is error for any judge in any criminal case, during its progress or in his charge tо 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. Should any judge violate this Code section, the violation shall be held by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeаls to be error and the decision in the case reversed, and a new trial granted in the court below with such directions as the Supreme Court or Court of Apрeals may lawfully give.
As we held in
Starr,
the above instruction violated OCGA § 17-8-57 and requires reversal bеcause the jurors could have reasonably taken the instruction to be an expression or intimation of the judge’s opinion that the minor child’s statements were reliable or true.
Starr,
Although the trial court' realized the error and attemрted to correct it by giving curative instructions to the jury, we find that this was not sufficient to cure the violation.
Starr,
[I]n those instances in which a technical violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 occurs in the giving of a jury charge, when the charge does not otherwise assumе certain things as facts and intimate to the jury what the judge believes the evidence to be, the giving of additional or curative instructions may suffice to correct the error. See Sims v. State,266 Ga. 417 (2) (467 SE2d 574 ) (1996).
Patel v. State,
Judgment reversed.