Defendant was convicted by a jury on two counts of aggravated child molestation and acquitted on two counts of aggravated sodomy.
M. S., defendant’s five-yеar-old grandson, told his mother that J. W., M. S.’s nine-year-old cousin, and N. S., his ten-year-old uncle (defendant’s son), had “stuck their joober in my butt,” meaning they had engaged in anal intercourse with him. After a doctor’s physical exam showed that M. S.’s rectum was stretched to the point that two fingers could be easily inserted without hurting him, his mother asked him if any adults were involved. When M. S. was silent and appeared scared, she told him she would name some names and he should stop her if she named anyone who was involved. She first named her own father, her stepfather and a cousin of M. S.’s father, and M. S. did not respond. Then she named “Papa Billy,” M. S.’s name for defendant, and M. S. said, “(P)lease don’t tell ... he done it.” Later, when M. S. and his mother were driving by defendant’s house, M. S. pointed at some bushes and said, “Mom, that’s where Papa Billy did that to me at.” This was a spontaneous remark on M. S.’s part; his mother had not brought up the subject. M. S. also told Investigator Travis Brown, the deputy sheriff assigned to the case, that “Papa” hаd touched him in this way. Although there was some confusion as to which grandfather he was referring to, M. S. referred to the one who touched him as N. S.’s daddy and said he had a beard. Both of these descriptions fit defendant and do not fit the others M. S. calls “Papa.” J. W. also testified that defendant had anal intercourse with him in the bushes at defendant’s house, though he had previously told Investigator Brown that no adults were involved. J. W.’s school counselor testified that he had told her about this incident.
Defendant agreed to take a polygraph test and signed a stipulation providing that the results of the test could be used in court. The stipulation also provided that defendant could have a second, independent polygraph test, and that the results of the second test would also be admissible. When the results of the first test showed deception on the part of defendant, he made a motion for funds for an independent polygraph test, which was granted. Howevеr, the second test also showed that defendant was deceptive in answering relevant questions. Over defendant’s objection, the State was allowed tо introduce the results of both tests.
2. Defendant argues the trial court erred in allowing him only 12 peremptory challenges of potential jurors rather than 20. See OCGA § 15-12-165 (amended effective July 1, 1992 to reduce number of peremptory challenges for criminal defendant from 20 to 12). Because the charged offensеs occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment, defendant contends the trial court’s application of the amended version of OCGA § 15-12-165 in his case violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Although we have not addressed this exact question, numerous other jurisdictions have; and all have concluded, as did the trial court here, that the application of a law reducing the number of a criminal defendant’s peremptory strikes is not an impermissible application of an ex post facto law because the change is procedural rather than substantive. Sеe, e.g., Simpson v. Wyrick, 527 FSupp. 1144 (W. D. Mo. 1981), aff'd, 685 F2d 438 (8th Cir. 1982); Haynes v. State, 424 S2d 669 (Ala. Cr. App. 1982); Schaefer v. Commonwealth,
3. Defendant next contends that the trial court infringed his right . not to incriminate himself when it comрelled defendant to disclose information regarding the expert who gave him the second, independent polygraph test and allowed the State tо call him as its witness. Because it will further the search for truth, our Supreme Court has held that the State is entitled to a copy of a scientific report by a
4. Defendant’s argument that the trial court should have included in its charge on polygraph tests an instruction that such tests are unreliable also is without merit. The charge given by the trial judge was a correct statement of the law under State v. Chambers,
5. Lastly, defendant challenges two of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, which defendant says limitеd his right to thoroughly confront his accusers. Evidentiary matters, including the scope of cross-examination, lie largely within the discretion of the trial court. See Scott v. State,
At thе end of defendant’s cross-examination of M. S., defense counsel asked M. S. a compound question designed to emphasize inconsistencies in his statements. The trial court properly sustained an objection to this question and gave defense counsel the opportunity to rephrase it, but defense counsel chose not to do so. In any case, defendant was able to repeatedly point out and emphasize the inconsistencies in the stories оf both victims. See Scott,
During defendant’s direct testimony, defense counsel sought to elicit information regarding how J. W.’s parents (defendant’s sister and her husband) disciplined J. W. When the State оbjected on relevancy grounds, defense counsel stated that it could be inferred from their disciplinary practices that J. W. might have changed his story
Judgment affirmed.