State v. Green

Billy Ray Green was convicted in Barrow County of attempting to entice a 15-year-old girl, A.H., into his car by falsely claiming her father had asked him to pick her up. Earlier that same day, Green had made unwanted sexual comments to two adult women who worked at a nearby CVS. The Court of Appeals of Georgia threw out his enticement conviction, reasoning that because those comments were directed at adults rather than the child victim, they could not count as evidence that Green intended to commit child molestation or indecent acts when he approached A.H. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed. It held that evidence of an adult's sexually suggestive comments earlier the same day can be relevant to show a defendant's intent when he later tries to entice a child, especially when the incidents happen close together in time and under similar circumstances. Because that evidence, combined with Green's inconsistent testimony and flight from the scene, was enough for a jury to find the required intent, the court reversed the Court of Appeals and restored Green's conviction.

Evidence that a defendant made unwanted, sexually suggestive comments to an adult shortly before an alleged child enticement is relevant to whether the enticement was done for the purpose of child molestation or indecent acts, and here that evidence, together with other proof, was sufficient to support the conviction.

The ruling means prosecutors in Georgia can use a defendant's sexual comments toward adults, made shortly before an alleged child enticement, as evidence of intent, potentially strengthening similar prosecutions statewide and making it harder for defendants to argue such conduct is legally irrelevant.

Reversed in part (Court of Appeals decision); conviction affirmed

1. The court explained that relevance under Georgia's evidence rules (Rule 401, O.C.G.A. § 24-4-401) is a low bar: evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable, distinct from how strongly it proves that fact.
2. Because Green pleaded not guilty, his intent to entice the child for the purpose of child molestation or indecent acts was a fact the State had to prove, making any evidence bearing on that intent relevant.
3. Drawing on prior precedent (Olds v. State), the court reasoned that evidence a person committed a similar intentional act close in time and under similar circumstances tends to show the person acted with the same kind of intent later, so Green's sexual comments to a CVS employee less than an hour before approaching the child had some tendency to show his intent toward her.
4. The court held that the Court of Appeals of Georgia erred by categorically excluding this evidence just because it involved adults rather than the child victim, since relevance does not depend on the age of the person the earlier statements were directed at.
5. Applying the standard for reviewing whether evidence supports a conviction (asking whether a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt), the court found that the CVS evidence, Green's inconsistent testimony, and his flight from the scene together gave the jury enough to infer his intent and support the conviction.

• child enticement conviction
• sufficiency of evidence
• relevance of evidence
• CVS employee testimony
• criminal intent