MILLER, P. J., RICKMAN and REESE, JJ.
a jury trial, Patrick Edward Earwood, a police officer, was
convicted of several felonies based upon his predatory
criminal conduct while on duty. He filed a motion for new
trial, which the trial court denied. Earwood appeals the judgment
of conviction and the trial court's subsequent denial of
his motion for new trial. Specifically, he argues that the
trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after
a State witness referenced bad character evidence that he
contends had been excluded pursuant to a motion in limine,
and further erred in preventing him from refreshing a
witness's recollection with a report written by a third
party. We find no error and affirm.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in
the light most favorable to support the jury's verdict,
and the defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of
innocence. We do not weigh the evidence or judge the
credibility of the witnesses, but determine only whether the
evidence authorized the jury to find the defendant guilty of
the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with the
standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307 (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979).
Laster v. State, 340 Ga.App. 96, 97 (796 S.E.2d 484)
construed, the evidence adduced at trial showed that in May
2012, Earwood was sworn in as a police officer and began
working part-time for the Cave Spring Police Department (the
"Department"). The Department was small and was
made up of mostly part-time officers, although it employed
three full-time officers. A single officer was assigned to
work any given 12-hour shift, and that officer generally
drove the newer of the two police vehicles owned by the
Department. In mid-2013, Earwood became one of the three
2013, an investigator with the Floyd County Police Department
was given information that a child had alleged inappropriate
conduct against an officer within the Department and she
began to investigate. During the ensuing investigation, the
investigator discovered several young women who made
allegations of misconduct against Earwood:
B., who was between 14 and 15 years old at the time, alleged
that during the summer of 2012, she was in Cave Spring living
with a friend after finishing her ninth grade school year. At
approximately 9:00 p.m. one summer evening, B. B. was in the
park getting some water while walking to a nearby
friend's house. Earwood drove by B. B. in his patrol car
before circling back around and inquiring what she was doing
in the park. He then demanded that she give him oral sex and
threatened that he would arrest her mother for neglect if she
refused to do so. B. B. complied with Earwood's demand as
he stood outside of the patrol car.
also reported that on several occasions, Earwood drove her
and her friends around in his patrol car late at night after
curfew, taking them swimming or allowing them into otherwise
closed government buildings to go "ghost hunting."
On one such occasion, B. B. and her friend, M. R., were
walking to M. R.'s boyfriend's house when Earwood
passed in his patrol car and picked them up. Earwood let the
girls into City Hall to "ghost hunt[ ]" and then
allowed them to climb over the fence into the closed public
pool to swim. After encouraging the girls to swim naked,
which they declined to do, Earwood shined a flashlight on
them as they changed. He then left the girls, who proceeded
to walk to M. R.'s boyfriend's house. At some point,
the girls got into an argument and B. B. left. While walking
home alone, Earwood again stopped B. B., who asked him to
retrieve M. R. from her boyfriend's house. Earwood agreed
on the condition that B. B. "flash" him.
R., who was between 15 and 16 years old at the time,
confirmed the events above and explained that after
"ghost hunting" and swimming with B. B., Earwood
did indeed retrieve her from her boyfriend's house,
telling her that she "needed to go with him because
he's a cop." M. R. originally sat in the back of the
patrol car, but Earwood stopped the vehicle and removed his
belongings from the front seat so that M. R. would join him
there. While doing so, Earwood asked M. R. to pull up her
shirt, but she refused. He thereafter drove M. R. to numerous
isolated locations, including the cemetery, where he turned
off all the lights and told her it "would be more fun if
[she] would be willing to do stuff." He then took her to
a deadend road and asked her to "do it on the hood"
of the patrol car. After M. R. shook her head "no,"
Earwood began rubbing her upper thigh and attempted to put
his hand down her pants, but she pushed his hand away. He
also squeezed her breast and attempted to put his hand under
her shirt, but she again pushed his hand away. Before
departing, Earwood asked if she would "lean down and do
anything to him." M. R. indicated that she would not and
seeking a distraction, began calling and texting her
eventually told Earwood that she needed to use the restroom,
and that her blood sugar was low and she needed food. He took
her to City Hall and before going inside, M. R. called her
father and let him know she was with Earwood; the two men
also spoke. As M. R. finished using the bathroom and began
pulling up her pants, Earwood appeared and told her "you
can pull [those] back down." M. R. nervously laughed it
off, and Earwood took her to a gas station to buy a candy bar
before he again drove them to the dead-end road. M. R.
informed Earwood that B. B. was texting her and eager for her
to return, and Earwood responded that she "would [have
been] a whole lot more fun if [she] would have stayed . . .
off the phone." Earwood eventually returned M. R. to her
boyfriend's house where B. B. was waiting, after
confirming that she would not "tell anybody . . .
anything about tonight."
B. B., and M. R.'s boyfriend discussed the events that
night between the three of them, but no one reported
Earwood's conduct until June 2013, when M. R. disclosed
it to a friend whose father was also an officer within the
Department. It was M. R.'s outcry and the subsequent
reporting of that outcry to her friend's law enforcement
father that prompted the investigation in this case.
G. was another of Earwood's victims. In May 2013, A. G.,
who was not from Cave Spring, drove there with a friend. She
was under the influence of prescription drugs and
methamphetamine when she and her friend got into an argument
outside of an apartment complex, and her friend drove away
and left her there. Knowing nobody in the city, A. G. began
walking up the road when she was stopped by an off-duty
police officer who had witnessed the events. The officer
instructed A. G. to wait for a uniformed officer to arrive,
and although she initially attempted to resist the
officer's request, she ultimately relented.
arrived in a marked police vehicle and the off-duty officer
left. After obtaining A. G.'s preliminary information,
Earwood requested and obtained consent to search her person,
at which time he found narcotics in her pocket. At no point,
however, did Earwood use his radio or formally arrest A. G.
Rather, he drove her to the police station while repeatedly
asking, "[W]ell, what are we gong to do about
this?" After what A. G. perceived to be an extensive
amount of time, she and Earwood were still sitting in the
police station, alone, while he made small talk and ignored
her repeated inquiries as to whether he was going to arrest
her. Finally, A. G. called her mother to ask for money,
assuming that Earwood was seeking payment to let her go.
Earwood demanded oral sex in exchange for releasing A. G. She
agreed, on the condition that he drive her to meet her mother
when she was finished. Earwood drove to a remote dirt rode
and stood beside his vehicle as A. G. performed oral sex on
him. He then took A. G. to a store located in a different
city, where her parents had been waiting for ...