High Court Narrows Basis for Sexual Battery Charges Involving Children Under 16

9-15-15 Georgia:

Presaged by oral arguments in March during which both the state and the defense agreed that a trial judge's erroneous instructions to a jury had resulted in a flawed conviction, the Georgia Supreme Court has narrowed the legal standards under which a charge of sexual battery can be brought against a defendant accused of touching someone younger than 16.

The Supreme Court overruled a Court of Appeals opinion that would potentially criminalize even the most innocuous contact anyone might have with a child while changing a diaper or on a playground, the court ruled.

The ruling clarifies that, while no one under 16 can legally consent to sexual contact or activity, in the case of someone charged with sexual battery—which can mean any sort of contact with a person's private parts—the simple fact that the alleged victim was under 16 does not mean the contact was not consensual.

The ruling, while expected, is unlikely to spell much relief for the St. Marys man who brought the appeal: The same jury that convicted Patrick Watson on two counts of sexual battery against his daughter also found him guilty of child molestation against another girl, which earned him 15 years in prison. That sentence was also upheld by the Court of Appeals, and was not part of the high court's review.

But the opinion is likely to have far-reaching ramifications for other defendants, said Ross & Pines partner Noah Pines, who represents Watson and argued the appeal. Even though his client may not benefit from the ruling, the issue is one that he'd been aware of for some time and wanted to see addressed by the high court.

"Someone asked me, 'If it's not going to help your client, why appeal this?'" Pines said. "I did it because this is an important issue that I knew was out there, and because the Court of Appeals was wrong. It was the right thing to do."

"I'm very happy with this ruling," said Pines. "The Supreme Court picks cases where they know they can make a difference, and this gives me a little validation that my interpretation of the statute wasn't crazy."

The unanimous opinion was written by Justice Carol Hunstein, with a short concurrence by Justice David Nahmias noting that Brunswick Circuit Distract Attorney Jackie Johnson could re-file the sexual battery charges against Watson provided the proper jury instructions were issued, even though the "substantial sentence" he's already serving might weigh against such a retrial.

After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Johnson's office filed a brief with the court conceding that Pines' reading of the law was correct and requesting that oral arguments be canceled, but the justices declined to do so. Atlanta attorney Andrew Ekonomou, who serves an assistant district attorney for Johnson's office and argued the state's case, found himself in the unusual position of agreeing with opposing counsel even as he defended the Court of Appeals ruling. ..Continued.. by Greg Land, Daily Report