DILLARD, P. J., RAY and SELF, JJ.
Dixon appeals from his convictions of one count of aggravated
child molestation and four counts of child molestation. He
argues that the trial court erred in (1) admitting evidence
qualifying as "another offense of sexual assault"
under OCGA § 24-4-413 or "another offense of child
molestation" under OCGA § 24-4-414; and (2)
declining to exercise its discretion to grant a new trial
because the verdict was contrary to the weight of the
evidence under OCGA § 5-5-21. For the reasons explained
below, we affirm.
appeal from a criminal conviction, the standard for reviewing
the sufficiency of the evidence "is whether a rational
trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. This Court does not reweigh evidence or
resolve conflicts in testimony; instead, evidence is reviewed
in a light most favorable to the verdict, with deference to
the jury's assessment of the weight and credibility of
the evidence." (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Hayes v. State, 292 Ga. 506 (739 S.E.2d 313) (2013).
So viewed, the record shows that the female victim, who was
15 years old at the time of the trial, testified that Dixon
dated her mother. When the victim was around nine to ten
years old, Dixon touched her breasts, but she never told her
incident occurred when the victim was lying on the floor and
her mother was asleep on the couch. Dixon placed a blanket
over the victim, laid down beside her, and touched her
vaginal area with his hand underneath her clothing. Her
mother did not awaken, and the victim did not tell her what
Dixon had done.
different occasion, Dixon instructed the victim to "suck
his penis" in the kitchen after her mother went to the
store. She explained that she did not want to do it, but
"every time he would pull me forward, I jerked away and
he kept on doing it and I had did it and he wanted me to do
it more and I kept on jerking away and pulling my head away
and I didn't do it anymore." On this same occasion,
Dixon made her touch his penis. The victim explained that
Dixon told her "he would hurt [her] or [her]
family" if she told or did not do what he wanted.
the victim later told her aunt about Dixon's conduct, the
aunt took her to the police, where the victim spoke with a
detective. She subsequently gave a video-recorded forensic
interview at the Children's Advocacy Center, and the
State played the video for the jury during the trial. At the
beginning of the interview, in response to a question about
why she was being interviewed, the victim stated it was
"about me being raped or sexual touch." She
described the incident in the kitchen as happening while her
mother "was passed out on the couch." At trial, the
victim admitted that this last statement was inconsistent
with her testimony that her mother was at the store when the
incident in the kitchen occurred.
point during the interview, the victim stated that her mother
was doing "really bad right now" and would leave
her at home alone when she would go out. She explained that
this was why she wanted to go live with her father. She also
described a meeting with both of her parents a few days
before the interview in which her mother said she did not
know about Dixon's behavior. According to the victim, her
mother "tried to lie about it, " because the mother
also stated that the victim's grandparents knew about it.
According to the victim, her mother finally admitted that she
did know about Dixon's behavior, but the victim did not
know how her mother knew about it.
trial, the victim conceded that her version of events in the
forensic interview made it appear like Dixon's abuse
occurred "every time her mom left" over a two-year
period and that this was not true. She also acknowledged that
her aunt no longer allowed her to live in her home because of
a dispute relating to lying and that she was currently living
with her mother again after a stint in foster care. Finally,
she denied telling another adult that Dixon had penetrated
her vagina with his penis.
victim's grandmother testified that it was her personal
opinion that the victim's character was one of
untruthfulness. According to the grandmother, the victim
confessed to her that she had lied about Dixon saying
"something out of the way to her." It is unclear
from the grandmother's testimony what is meant by saying
"something out of the way." According to the
victim, Dixon was good friends with her grandparents.
State also introduced evidence of another offense of child
molestation or sexual assault. W. T., who was 23 years old at
the time of the trial, testified that when he was between the
ages of six and eleven years old, Dixon, who was married to
his mother, began touching his genitals. Over time, Dixon
began having anal sex with W. T., and W. T. performed oral
sex upon Dixon. W. T. testified that Dixon threatened to take
him into the woods and shoot him if he told anyone what they
T. told his mother what was happening in the fourth or fifth
grade, Dixon was waiting for him when he came home from
school and yelled at him and accused him of lying. Dixon then
took W. T. and his mother to W. T.'s school "and
then started yelling at all the counselors and people in the
front office" about the allegations. At that point in
time, W. T. had only told his mother about Dixon's sexual
abuse. After this incident at the school, "nothing ever
happened and no investigation was launched[.]" W. T.
explained that "[i]t was just a whole ordeal and then
[Dixon] left for a while and then came back." When W. T.
turned 11 years old, the abuse started slowing down and it
ultimately stopped after his mother ended the relationship.
investigating police officer testified that school counselors
are mandatory reporters who are required to notify law
enforcement of allegations of child molestation. He
acknowledged, however, that "[t]here are times when it
doesn't get reported by [a] mandated reporter. . .
." He explained that he did not do any investigation of
W. T.'s allegations of molestation because they took
place in a different county and that he therefore referred W.
T. to the sheriff's office in that county.
Dixon maintains that the "trial court erred by allowing
uncorroborated and unduly probative testimony [by W. T.]
which was substantially prejudicial ...