Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Jarvis v. State
Citations: 269 Ga. App. 415; 604 S.E.2d 258; 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 2893; 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 1177Docket: A04A1824
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; September 1, 2004; Georgia; State Appellate Court
J. D. Jarvis appeals his conviction for the aggravated child molestation of his two-year-old stepniece, S. T., after his motion for a new trial was denied. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of similar transaction evidence, and claims ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirms the conviction, finding no merit in Jarvis's claims. The evidence presented showed that Jarvis was the only adult present when S. T.'s mother left her and her younger sibling with her half-sister for eight hours. After returning home, S. T.'s mother noticed blood, redness, and swelling in S. T.'s diapers, prompting her to ask S. T. if anyone had touched her. S. T. identified Jarvis as the perpetrator. A medical examination confirmed signs of trauma consistent with sexual or physical abuse. Additionally, Jarvis's past was revealed when two of his adult daughters testified he had molested them as children, leading to his previous incarceration. 1. The evidence was deemed sufficient for a rational jury to find Jarvis guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Jarvis failed to preserve his objection to the admission of similar transaction evidence for appellate review, as he did not provide grounds for the objection at trial. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting such evidence, noting that sexual offenses against children show sufficient similarity to warrant its inclusion. 3. Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, Jarvis argued that his attorney failed to call certain witnesses who could have testified about S. T.'s mother’s alleged motives against him. The court found that the trial court could reasonably determine the witnesses lacked credibility, and that strategic decisions made by counsel, after consulting with Jarvis, fell within acceptable professional conduct. Jarvis did not demonstrate that the outcome would have been different had those witnesses testified. The judgment affirming Jarvis's conviction is upheld.