Stephen Vaughn, III. v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: A19A0956

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; October 4, 2019; Georgia; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Motions for reconsideration must be received in the clerk’s office within ten days of the decision date to be considered timely. Stephen Vaughn, III was convicted of seven counts of child molestation and two counts of aggravated child molestation against his girlfriend’s daughters. Vaughn's appeal argues that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his molestation of another victim as intrinsic evidence and that OCGA § 24-4-414 unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to him regarding separate allegations.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, noting that on appeal, the defendant does not enjoy the presumption of innocence, and evidence is viewed favorably towards the guilty verdict. The evidence indicated that Vaughn abused the oldest victim, threatening her and her family to prevent disclosure of the abuse. The other two victims were also abused but did not immediately report it. Eventually, they disclosed the abuse to their mother after the First Victim confided in a pastor. Vaughn was indicted for the crimes against the Second and Third Victims, and the trial court allowed evidence of the First Victim's abuse as intrinsic and admissible under OCGA § 24-4-414. Vaughn's motion for a new trial was denied, and he had previously been convicted for offenses against the First Victim in a separate trial. The appellate court found no error in the admission of evidence regarding the First Victim.

Prior to trial, the State requested the trial court to allow the First Victim to testify, asserting that her testimony was admissible as intrinsic evidence and under OCGA § 24-4-414. Vaughn countered that the testimony was overly prejudicial, arguing that the case against the First Victim was stronger than those against other victims. However, Vaughn did not contest the State’s claim of admissibility during the trial. The trial court ultimately ruled the testimony admissible on both grounds. Under Georgia law, objections to evidence must be timely and specific to preserve them for appellate review. Vaughn's objection regarding prejudice did not extend to the State’s admissibility argument, thus forfeiting his right to ordinary appellate review on that issue.

Despite this forfeiture, plain error review may apply to unpreserved evidentiary claims affecting substantial rights. To establish plain error, Vaughn must demonstrate a clear, unwaived error that affected substantial rights and undermined the judicial process. In this case, Vaughn failed to prove that the trial court's admission of the First Victim's testimony constituted clear error. Intrinsic evidence is permissible if it relates to the same transaction as the charged offense, completes the story of the crime, or is intertwined with the charged offense. The evidence of molestation against the First Victim was deemed intrinsic because she lived with, and was a sister to, the other victims, and the abuses occurred concurrently.

All three victims of Vaughn disclosed his abuse to one another and sought to protect each other. They also reported the abuse to their mother multiple times, linking the evidence against the First Victim with the charges against the Second and Third Victims. The trial court's decision to admit this evidence was not plain error. Vaughn claims that OCGA § 24-4-414 is unconstitutional as it improperly shifts the burden of proof onto him for separate allegations, but this claim was not preserved for appeal as it was raised late in the proceedings. The Supreme Court of Georgia transferred Vaughn's appeal to a lower court because the constitutional challenge was not timely. Vaughn did not argue that his claim was subject to plain error review and failed to provide relevant legal authority to support his position regarding the evidentiary ruling. Consequently, his constitutional challenge lacks merit, and the appeal was affirmed, with the judges concurring.