Case Information
*1 THIRD DIVISION
MILLER, P. J.,
MCFADDEN and MCMILLIAN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
July 7, 2016 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A16A0328. SNEED v. THE STATE.
M C M ILLIAN , Judge.
In this out-of-time appeal, Lamarkas Sneed appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial after a jury convicted him of aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, Sneed asserts that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, in denying his motion for new trial on the grounds of ineffectiveness of counsel, and in failing to charge the jury on the issue of consent. We affirm for the reasons set forth below.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, [1] the evidence shows that at the time of the incident, the victim lived with her mother and her two younger brothers, and Sneed was temporarily staying with the family. Sneed and the victim’s *2 mother had been involved in a romantic relationship, and Sneed is the father of the younger of the victim’s brothers.
On January 24, 2011, Sneed, the victim, her mother, and her brothers were all watching a movie in her mother’s bedroom. Everyone except the older of her two brothers was on the bed. Later, after the victim’s older brother left the room, the victim, her mother, and her younger brother fell asleep. The victim, who was 17 years old at the time, testified that she was awakened by Sneed touching her buttocks and that he then put his fingers in her vagina. The victim said that she was too scared to speak at that point, but she tried unsuccessfully to wake up her mother by tapping her on the arm. The victim then got up and left the room without saying anything and went to her own bedroom.
Once the victim was in her room she texted her older brother to come in and also called her grandmother. The victim asked her grandmother to come over and told her that Sneed had touched her. When the victim’s brother got to the victim’s room, the door was locked and she was “balled up crying behind the door.” The victim refused to tell her brother what happened until their grandmother got there, but after she arrived, the victim said that Sneed had touched her.
The grandmother testified that when she arrived Sneed answered the door, at which time she confronted him about touching her granddaughter. Sneed denied doing anything wrong. The victim’s mother heard the grandmother and Sneed talking and came upstairs, at which point the grandmother told the mother that Sneed was “messing with your daughter while you’re asleep.”
At his grandmother’s direction, the brother called 911. Officer T. Barnes arrived on the scene and detained Sneed. Officer Barnes proceeded into the house and spoke with the victim, whom he described as being “withdrawn” and “distraught.” The victim told Officer Barnes that everyone fell asleep watching a movie and that she woke up to Sneed “rubbing her vagina, her vaginal area, and then he placed his finger inside of her. She said she wanted to scream out, but she was afraid that she would not be believed by her mother.” The victim also told Officer Barnes that “she tried to stop him and he would not stop,” and that she attempted to remove Appellant’s hands from her pants. Officer Barnes testified that the statements given by the brother and grandmother were consistent with what the victim had told him.
Officer Barnes contacted Detective Angela Finley of the DeKalb County Police Department’s Special Victims Unit. Finley met the victim and Officer Barnes at police headquarters, where the victim gave two statements to the detective, one *4 written and one verbal. The victim told Finley that her mother’s boyfriend “had inappropriately touched her” and that “he had used his finger to rub on her vagina.”
The victim also testified that when she was around seven or eight years old, Sneed would come into her room while she was asleep and pull the covers off of her. She told her mother about this, but her mother questioned whether it had really happened. The victim’s grandmother testified that the victim recently told her that the victim had reported to her mother when she was around eight that Sneed had come into her room and lifted the covers off of her. Officer Barnes stated that at the scene the victim said to him that an incident like this had happened before but her mother did not believe her, and Finley testified that the victim told her about two other incidents where Sneed touched her inappropriately when she was five or six years old but her mother did not believe her. The mother also testified that the victim told her that Sneed touched her on “the behind” when she was seven or eight, but the mother did not believe at the time that the touch was of a sexual nature.
On the night of the incident in question, Sneed told the mother that “he didn’t touch” the victim. However, a month or two later, the mother received a letter in the mail from Sneed, in which he admitted to sticking his finger in the victim’s vaginal area. In the letter, Sneed claimed that the victim initiated the contact by rubbing her *5 feet on his penis. Sneed claimed that the victim did not try to stop him from touching her vagina, and, in fact, she moved to make it easier for Sneed to take her pants off and that the victim was not wearing any panties. The mother testified that such actions were uncharacteristic of her daughter.
On September 29, 2011, Sneed was convicted of aggravated sexual battery, and on April 8, 2015, the trial court denied his motion for new trial. Sneed filed his notice of appeal 35 days later, on May 13, 2015. This Court dismissed the appeal because the untimely notice was insufficient to confer jurisdiction for appellate review. However, Sneed subsequently moved for an out-of-time appeal, and the trial court granted the motion. This appeal followed.
1. In his first two enumerations of error, Sneed argues that the trial court erred
in admitting testimony and evidence of pretrial statements made by several of the
State’s witnesses. For this Court to reverse a trial court’s decision to admit evidence,
the objecting party must show “error triangulation,” that is, “(1) error, (2)
contemporaneous objection, and (3) harm as a result of that error.” (Citation and
punctuation omitted.)
Scoggins v. State
,
(a) Sneed argues that the trial court erred in admitting testimony from the
victim’s brother, grandmother, mother, and Officer Barnes regarding statements the
victim made about the events on the night in question and the earlier incidents
involving Sneed when the victim was younger. Sneed asserts that no foundation was
laid for the admission of either prior consistent or inconsistent statements by the
victim and that this evidence improperly bolstered the victim’s testimony. However,
Sneed failed to raise any contemporaneous objection to the cited testimony at trial and
thus failed to preserve these arguments for appeal. See
Hatcher v. State
,
(b) Sneed also asserts that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence written
statements given by the victim’s brother and grandmother at the police station on the
night of the incident and in allowing those witnesses to read their statements to the
jury. Sneed’s counsel objected to the introduction of both statements on the ground
*7
of hearsay and added, in objecting to the brother’s statement, that she “[hadn’t] heard
anything that’s inconsistent.” The trial court overruled the objections. Although the
stated basis for Sneed’s objections was hearsay (and possibly the failure to provide
a foundation for admission of the brother’s written statement as a prior inconsistent
statement), he argues on appeal the trial court erred in admitting the written
statements as prior
consistent
statements, which improperly bolstered the witnesses’
credibility. Sneed’s failure to object on the grounds urged on appeal waives the issues
for appellate review. “To preserve an objection upon a specific ground for appeal, the
objection on that specific ground must be made at trial, or else it is waived.” (Citation
and punctuation omitted.)
Scoggins
,
2. Sneed further asserts that the trial court erred in admitting testimony from Finley commenting on the victim’s credibility and testimony from the victim’s mother commenting on both the victim’s and Sneed’s credibility. Finley testified that she interviewed the victim twice. In the second interview, she sought to clarify the victim’s first statement and thus the detective was “a little bit harder” on her and *8 “interrogated her a little bit more.” The detective opined, “I think she was just more credible the second time when I interviewed her” because she was “more teary-eyed,” never deviated from her original statement, and gave more detail about the earlier incidents. Additionally, the mother agreed with the prosecutor during direct examination that as a mother she had the ability to get to the truth when she talked to her child one-on-one, and she stated, “I knew from the way my daughter was sounding and the look on her face and the way she was acting, I knew that she was telling me the truth.” In addition, the mother testified that when she received Sneed’s letter asserting that the victim had provoked or consented to his touching her, she chose not to show it to her daughter because she knew that the “lies he put in there” would upset her. (All the evidence recited in this paragraph will be referred to collectively herein as the “Credibility Evidence.”)
However, because Sneed failed to object to the admission of this Credibility
Evidence, he has waived his right to complain on appeal, and thus there is no basis
for reversal on this ground.
Kinder v. State
,
3. Sneed next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new
trial on the ground that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to adequately
object to the admission of testimony he contends was inadmissible. “[T]his Court
reviews a trial court’s ruling on an ineffective assistance claim on appeal by accepting
the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly
erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.” (Citation and
punctuation omitted.)
Brewer v. State
,
In order to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the two-prong test
set forth in
Strickland v. Washington
must be satisfied.
As to the first prong of the
Strickland
test, “[t]o show that his lawyer’s
performance was deficient, Appellant must demonstrate that the lawyer performed his
duties in an objectively unreasonable way, considering all the circumstances and in
the light of prevailing professional norms.”
Davis v. State
, __ Ga. __ (2) (Case No.
S16A0103, decided June 6, 2016); See
Strickland
As to the prejudice prong of the
Strickland
test, Sneed must also show “a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.”
Strickland
,
(a) Sneed’s trial counsel testified at the hearing on the motion for new trial that she did not object to the testimony of the victim’s brother, mother, grandmother, and Officer Barnes regarding what the victim said about the incident on the night it occurred, because she believed those statements were part of the victim’s immediate outcry following the incident and were thus admissible as part of the res gestae. The written statements by the victim’s brother and grandmother, which were read into evidence, also addressed only the events surrounding the incident that night. The brother’s written statement related the sequence of events involving the text from his sister, the grandmother’s arrival at the house, and his mother then waking up. With regard to his sister’s statements, he reported only that “my sister had told me that my brother’s dad had touched her and that my grandma was on her way.” The grandmother’s statement provided that the victim had called her crying to say that *12 Sneed had touched her. When the grandmother asked where the mother was, the victim said that she was asleep. The grandmother told the victim to wake the mother up. The victim kept crying and asked her grandmother to come get her. When the grandmother arrived, she asked the victim if Sneed had put his penis in her. The victim said, “no, he just put his hands inside my pants.” Although trial counsel raised a general hearsay objection to the written statements given to police by the brother and grandmother, she did not object on the ground that the prior consistent statements improperly bolstered their testimony, and she could not recall a strategic reason for not objecting on this basis.
Pretermitting whether trial counsel’s performance could be considered deficient
in not objecting to evidence repeating the victim’s statements about Sneed’s actions
that night, we find that he has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by this
evidence. For the most part, the cited evidence was cumulative as each witnesses
testified and the written statements indicated that the victim said that Sneed had
touched her vaginal area. Sneed also admitted in his letter to the victim’s mother that
he had placed his fingers in the victim’s vagina and he did not contest this fact at trial.
Accordingly, Sneed has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by his trial
counsel’s failure to object to this evidence.
Williams v. State
,
We separately address testimony by Officer Barnes that the victim told him she
tried to stop Sneed and to move his hands out of her pants. Sneed’s sole defense at
trial was that the victim consented to, or even participated in, their interaction.
Although Officer Barnes’s testimony countered Sneed’s defense, it did not constitute
either a prior consistent statement by the victim or improper bolstering because the
victim did not testify at trial that she had taken those actions. She only testified that
she did not want Sneed to touch her. Moreover, the statement was not hearsay. At the
time of Sneed’s trial, the legal concept of res gestae as an exception to the hearsay
rule was codified under former OCGA § 24-3-3 of Georgia’s prior Evidence Code.
[2]
The statute provided that “[d]eclarations accompanying an act, or so nearly connected
therewith in time as to be free from all suspicion of device or afterthought, shall be
*14
admissible in evidence as part of res gestae.” Thus, Officer Barnes’s testimony
regarding what the victim told him she did during the incident was admissible as part
of the res gestae. See
Tucker v. State
,
We find, therefore, that Sneed has failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to the cited evidence repeating the victim’s statements about the incident.
(b) Sneed’s trial counsel did not recall a strategic reason for failing to object to the testimony from witnesses other than the victim concerning the prior difficulties between Sneed and the victim.
It is well settled that “[p]roof of prior difficulties between the defendant and
victim – including prior acts of molestation – is admissible without notice or a
*15
hearing . . . to show the defendant’s motive, intent, and bent of mind in committing
the act against the victim which resulted in the charges for which he was being
prosecuted.” (Citation omitted.)
Madison v. State
,
Although Sneed’s trial counsel did not object to the other witnesses’ testifying
about the victim’s out-of-court statements regarding these prior difficulties, the record
demonstrates that she chose instead to cross-examine the witnesses about this
evidence. This Court has previously found that as part of a reasonable trial strategy,
a trial counsel may choose not to object to such testimony but may opt instead to
subject it to cross-examination.
Barmore v. State
,
Even though Sneed’s trial counsel does not recall her specific strategy in
failing to object, we find that Sneed has failed to establish that her approach to the
*16
prior difficulties testimony fell below an objective standard of reasonable
representation in addressing this evidence.
Thornton v. State
,
Because the failure to establish either prong of the
Strickland
test is lethal to
a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
Fuller
,
(c) Although, as discussed in Division 2 above, Sneed appeals the admission of the Credibility Evidence, he makes no argument in his appellate brief concerning this evidence in the context of his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.
Sneed begins his ineffective assistance argument by noting that “[r]egarding all of the above discussed testimony [his] trial counsel either did not object at all, or in the case of the admission of the written statements objected only on hearsay grounds,” even though he asserts the evidence was inadmissible, but he confines his argument to evidence that he asserts improperly repeated the victim’s testimony or that improperly repeated the testimony of other witnesses. Sneed contends that the *17 “case rested entirely on [the victim’s] credibility and that “[t]hrough the erroneously admitted statements, [the victim’s] credibility was repeatedly bolstered by other witnesses repeating her allegations.” He further asserts that “[t]he credibility of those witnesses was then bolstered by the admission of their own prior statements, none of which were proper testimony for the jury.” He makes no mention of the testimony from Finley and the mother addressing the victim’s credibility or the mother’s testimony attacking his own credibility. Under these circumstances, we find that Sneed has abandoned for appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to object to the Credibility Evidence.
Therefore, we find no basis for reversal on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.
4. Sneed further argues that the trial court erred by not giving his requested jury
charges on the issue of consent, which was his sole defense. “A trial court does not
abuse its discretion in refusing to give a jury charge in the exact language requested
when the charge given substantially covers the correct principles of law.”
Gamble v.
State
,
Here, we find no error on the part of the trial court in refusing to give the jury
charges requested by Sneed. In its instructions to the jury, the trial court read the
statutory definition of aggravated sexual battery, which says “[a] person commits the
offense of aggravated sexual battery when he or she intentionally penetrates with a
foreign object the sexual organ . . . of another person
without the consent of that
person
.” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA §16-6-22.2 (b). The trial court also instructed
the jury that the State was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each and
every element of the charge in the indictment, which would include lack of consent.
The court further instructed the jury twice that, should they find that the State failed
to meet its burden, they were required to acquit Sneed. Because the trial court’s jury
charges, when considered as a whole and in conjunction with each other, substantially
covered the principles of law requested by Sneed concerning the issue of consent, we
find no basis for reversal on this ground.
Campbell v. State
,
Judgment affirmed. Miller, P. J., and McFadden, J., concur .
Notes
[1]
Jackson v. Virginia
,
[2] The trial in this case took place in September 2011, prior to the adoption of Georgia’s new Evidence Code, which went into effect on January 1, 2013. See Ga. L. 2011, pp. 99, 214, § 101.