*1 moot appellant’s motions as were rendered “denial” of such of which new orders complaint of enter erroneous dismissal new as to losing party The such of these motions. address merits availa- right appeal pursue will be free to whаtever rulings to it or him at that time. ble part. with direction in part in vacated reversed Benham, J.,
Banke, April 6, 1987. Hoin,
Patricia A. Sykes,
William I. THE STATE.
73732. TIMMONS v.
Birdsong, Chief Judge. appeals stаtutory rape David Brian Timmons his conviction age grounds on the child’s was stepdaughter, in him a directed ver- corroborated and the trial court erred Held: dict of and new trial. but two of charged against
Three offenses were statutory rape any were As to the act of these without corroboration. early very guilty, which was found the child testified season, morning got out оf during one her bed hunting room,” carport part took her to the “fire an where enclosed fireman, kept appellant, antique equipment. fire hoses and other Appellant pulled pants past got top his knees and down victim’s mother рenetrated slightly victim and had when he heard the previously told her coming. frightened (appellant was victim “go told they if were her “caught”); she would blamed did, the mother. quickly hide.” She sex, questions about or about his wife the victim had been school; in problems at a friend who was trouble about ask- and chastised her for mother then took the bedroom ing appellant such being right rеad his appellant,
At trial was shown that the after silent, and the child were investigating to remain detective he talking fire roоm 4:00 a.m. about 3:00 or my “I knew that coming, and he asked the child to hide because angry, really say why she would be wife would be mad” but cоuld asked them what the child was there and and that when his wife saw they dis- he told her were night, at that time they doing investigator questions. Appellant also told cussing some sex photographs had shown child some of nude and women purposes, “confirm[ing] [the child] thus whаt said about educational showing explicit photographs”; some he did not recall where the photographs but he was sure did not come come from (of house). Playboy magazine which he had several *2 appellant
At 6:00 trial said the child came into thе kitchen about hunting, gotten go a.m. when he had to deer and that he knew his agreed get up coming wife was have coffeе with him. He pushed room to and into the because she had he the child to hide testified that and coming her into fire he his wife the room when because get trouble, he did not the to want child since he knew she was upset “getting because her mother had been to her because she getting [swept] was not the dishes clean when she washed them photos girl floor.” He also testified men showed nude purposes. women for and The child’s mother educational testified these events occurred abоut 6:00 a.m. knew she when she and that going get up him, that and have coffee with and husband, came into the kitchen saw child both and and “sсared,” them looked and that she was confused that However, should look “scared.” she testified he her the child had asking pregnant; been him about a child at school who was evidently point mother believed husband on this and admonished girl telling the investigаtor him such The mother denied
that had looked scared and had said he was hiding play joke on her. There was some evidence the mother was making atmad the child for this accusation. rape statutory provides statute no shall be conviсtion (OCGA unsupported testimony
for this offense on the
§
child
(a)),
necessary
16-6-3
well
but it is
settled that it
is
that the child
every
be
crime,
corroborated as to
essential element of the
or that it
guilt,
only
corroborating
establish the defendant’s
that the
evi-
“
guilt
tend to
dence
quality
establish his
and
‘such
be
a character and
prove
guilt
by connecting
as tends to
of the accused
him
”
(233
State,
438,
with the crime.’ Chambers 141 Ga.
439
818),
(239
324).
grounds,
SE2d
rev’d on other
240 Ga. 76
SE2d
More-
quantum
over, the
of corroboration needed is not
is in
that which
it-
“
only
accused,
self sufficient to convict the
that
‘but
amount of inde-
pendent
alleged.
prove
evidence which tends to
that the incident occurred as
Slight
. . .
corroboration,
circumstances
sufficient
ultimately
question
jury.’
and
of corroboration is one for the
(283
703).
[Cit.]”
Hill v.
159 Ga.
testimony
We are satisfied that the child’s
that sexual conduct
by appellant
by
was committed
room” is
the “fire
corroborated
appellant’s
testimony
own
that he told the
to hide when he heard
approaching,
did
wаnt his wife to catch them in
room,
testimony
looked “scared”
wife’s
that he
and
him,
being ration-
of these facts not
discover thе child with
all
did
further,
conduct;
guilty
and
ally explained except as
girl photographs
shown the
under
circumstances
that he had
trier of
purposes.
reasonable
men
women for educational
nude
guilt beyond
proof
from all the evidence
rationally
could
find
fact
2781;
Virginia,
Deen, Judge, concurring Presiding specially. fully majority opinion, with the should concurring
While stepfather concedes that he further said that while from pictures of women med- shown his naked stepdaughter were, Playboy neverthe- possibly books and ical lеss, purposes. done so for contends that educational *3 Playboy her own idea. but that was stepdaughter did read pictures pornographic the nude and Other indicated that personal predilection permissive prefer- an indication of his oper- ences, his modus and as a method stimulation suggested that he intended to expected andi of conduct and encounter sexual Megar latter inferences. jury create. The could have believed the 447) Howell (1978); Ga. 754) (1984). April 6, 1987. Zell, Glenn Sosebee, Smith, Hugh Assis- Byron Attorney,
E. District D. Attorney, tant District THE JENKINS v. STATE.
73851. (356 SE2d Carley, Judge. attempt to com-
Appellant burglary and criminal indicted for ap- rape. appellant guilty of both crimes. jury mit by the and sentences entered peals judgments from the of conviction on the verdicts. jury’s trial court sufficiency of the evidence challenge
Appellant does