Saunders v. StateSaunders v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Carley
Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of two counts of child molestation. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentenсes entered by the trial court on the jury’s verdicts of guilt.
1. Appellant enumerates the general grounds. “There is no re *811 quirement that the testimony of the viсtim of child molestation be corroboratеd. [Cit.] Nevertheless, the testimony of the victim in this casе was corroborated in several material respects. ... [A] rational trior of fact could reasonably have found from the evidencе produced at trial, proof of appellant’s guilt of [each act of] child molestation beyond a reasonable doubt. [Cit.]” Adams v. State, 186 Ga. App. 599 (1) (367 SE2d 871) (1988).
2. Appеllant enumerates as error the trial court’s рurported allowance of an expert witness for the State to testify as to the “ultimate issue” in the case. However, this enumeration is not supported by argument or citation of authority аnd so is deemed abandoned pursuant to Court оf Appeals Rule 15 (c) (2). Smith v. State, 193 Ga. App. 208, 210 (3) (387 SE2d 419) (1989).
3. The trial court permitted adult witnesses to testify to certain statements mаde by the victim. Also, a videotape of an intеrview with the victim and a child therapist was admitted into evidence. Urging that, in each instance, the trial court failed first to find “sufficient indicia of reliability” рursuant to
The videotape was admitted without objection. Accordingly, any error otherwise assertible would be waived. See generally Bridgers v. State, 183 Ga. App. 98, 99 (1) (357 SE2d 894) (1987). Morеover, the record shows that the foundation which was laid by the State provided “sufficient indicia of reliability.” Newberry v. State, 184 Ga. App. 356, 357 (2) (361 SE2d 499) (1987).
As to the testimony by the adult witnesses relating thе victim’s statements, a finding of “sufficient indicia of reliability” inheres in the trial court’s admission of such testimony. Windom v. State, 187 Ga. App. 18, 19 (2) (369 SE2d 311) (1988).
4. Appellant enumerates as error the deniаl of his motion for new trial on the ground that the State improperly withheld exculpatory evidence.
The record shows that appellant did not file a Brady motion. Accordingly, there would be no revеrsible error unless the State withheld “evidence whiсh creates a reasonable doubt of guilt whiсh did not otherwise exist. [Cit.]” Williams v. State, 250 Ga. 463, 465 (298 SE2d 492) (1983). The trial court determined thаt no such exculpatory evidence had bеen withheld from appellant. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling. “Appellant has failed to show that any of the evidence alleged to have been improperly withheld was favorable and material and that he was, in any manner, denied а fair trial. [Cit.]” Holbrook v. State, 162 Ga. App. 400, 402 (1) (291 SE2d 729) (1982).
5. Appellant’s remaining enumerations of error are controlled adversely to him by this court’s opinion in the appeal of his co-defendant. Inman v. State, 195 Ga. App. 805 (_ SE2d _) (1990).
Judgments affirmed.
McMurray, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.