Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Atkins v. the State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided June 30, 2017No. A17A0240Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcFADDEN, Presiding Judge

Because the trial court excluded evidence relevant to a plausible defense that was not evidence of the victim’s past sexual behavior and therefore not within the scope of the Rape Shield Statute, I respectfully dissent from Division 2. I concur fully in Division 1.

After initially accusing, by name, a boy who lived in her neighborhood of impregnating her, A. O. leveled the same charge against Atkins. Notwithstanding DNA evidence that belied that charge, prosecution of Atkins continued on the theory that Atkins raped and molested her on other occasions.

*429Atkins filed a motion in limine, arguing…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Valenzuela v. NewsomeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1985
  2. Haley v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2011
  3. Harris v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1987
  4. Richardson v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2003
  5. Center for a Sustainable Coast v. Coastal Marshlands Protection CommitteeSupreme Court of Georgia · 2008

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API