Aggravated child molestation. Dougherty Superior Court. Before Judge Gray, Senior Judge.
Kevin C. Armstrong, for appellant.
Gregory W. Edwards, District Attorney, M. April Wynne, Cania R. Brown-Gordon, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
McFADDEN, Judge. Andrews, P. J., concurs. Ray, J., concurs in Divisions 1, 2 and 4, and in the judgment in Division 3.
After a jury trial, Loyce D. Harris was convicted of aggravated child molestation. He appeals, arguing that the state violated his rights by failing to provide him with a witness's statement as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215) (1963), and Georgia's reciprocal discovery statutes; that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony; and that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury on identification. We hold that Harris's failure to object on Brady grounds or to seek relief bars his challenge regarding the witness's statement; that even if the trial court erred by admitting hearsay, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and that the trial court did not err by refusing to give Harris's requested charges on identification. We therefore affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that Harris dated the victim's grandmother, with whom the victim lived. The five-year-old victim told her grandmother that, " Cash touched my pie-pie," which is the name they used for the vagina. The grandmother testified that the victim referred to Harris as Cash. At the recommendation of the police, the grandmother took the victim to a child advocacy center. A forensic interviewer interviewed the victim, who told her that Cash had touched her vagina with his finger and put his penis in her vagina.
2. Witness statement.
During cross-examination, the victim's uncle testified that, at the request of the assistant district attorney, he " wrote [a] statement and turned it in." Harris's attorney then asked the trial court, " may we approach regarding the statement that I never received?" The assistant district attorney objected to that characterization. The court responded, " There's no need to approach," and defense counsel answered, " Okay." She then continued cross-examination. Harris [331 Ga.App. 33] argues that the state's failure to provide him with the uncle's written statement violated his due process rights under the federal and
Georgia Constitutions because it was material impeachment evidence falling under Brady, and violated ...