SCOGA: Man says state failed to prove venue in Dawsonville sex assault case

By AccessWDUN staff

Posted 10:00AM on Sunday 10th May 2015 ( 9 years ago )

ATLANTA - The Georgia Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Monday in the case of a man convicted in the 2006 sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl in Dawson County.

Eddie Davis Martin, Jr. is currently serving a 20 year prison sentence for the sexual assault of the girl. Court documents say Martin, who was 21 at the time, met the girl at a Huddle House restaurant near her home in Dawsonville. Shortly thereafter, he began sneaking into her bedroom through an open window. The girl testified the two only talked at first, but eventually Martin forced her into sexual acts.

Martin claims the State failed to "prove venue" during his 2006 trial, so he wants the conviction overturned.

Martin already lost one appeal in 2008.

The following information is the complete documentation on the case released by the Supreme Court of Georgia:

FACTS: According to the facts at trial, Eddie Davis Martin, Jr. was 21 when he met A.C., a 12-year-old girl who was with her father at a Huddle House restaurant near their home in Dawsonville. At some point, the girl’s father told Martin that she was only 12 years old and he should leave her alone. But Martin began sneaking into the girl’s bedroom at night through a window. The girl testified that at first she and Martin would just talk, but as the visits progressed, there was more and more sexual touching. One night, the girl became uncomfortable and told Martin to leave. The next time Martin called and asked her if he could come over, she said no. She testified that later that night, she awoke and found Martin in her bed. He proceeded to force himself on her and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. She said he told her not to tell anyone or he would kill her. In his defense, Martin’s grandfather testified that on the night of the alleged rape, Martin was staying at his house. The grandfather said he slept in a recliner all night and would have heard if Martin left the house. At trial, the State introduced “similar transaction evidence,” alleging that soon after having sex with the 12-year-old, he had sex with a 15-year-old after going to her home when he knew her parents would be gone. Another similar transaction occurred a few months prior to the crimes alleged in this case, in which Martin visited another 12-year-old girl’s home several times and would “French kiss” her when they were alone. The prosecutor argued to the jury that “Apparently, the defendant likes to have sexual intercourse and perform sex acts on young teenage and preteen girls who are on the heavy side,” and “who have long, shoulder length brown hair.”

In August 2006, Martin was indicted by a Dawson County grand jury for rape, aggravated sexual battery, aggravated child molestation and three counts of child molestation. Following a December 2006 trial, the jury found him guilty of all counts but rape. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison to be followed by a number of years on probation. On appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld his convictions in 2008 and the state Supreme Court denied his petition to appeal to the high court. In October 2011, Martin filed a petition for a “writ of habeas corpus” in Macon County Superior Court. (Habeas corpus is a civil proceeding that allows already convicted prisoners to challenge their conviction on constitutional grounds in the county where they’re incarcerated. They generally file the action against the prison warden, who in this case was Gregory McLaughlin.) In his petition, Martin alleged he had received “ineffective assistance of counsel” in violation of his constitutional rights from both his trial attorney and his attorney during his appeal because both attorneys neglected to attack the State’s failure to prove venue – or where the crime was committed. In September 2013, the habeas court denied Martin relief, and he now appeals to the Georgia Supreme Court.

ARGUMENTS: The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed….” In any criminal case, venue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In its 2002 ruling in Graham v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court said: “Venue is more than a mere procedural nicety; it is a constitutional requirement that all criminal cases be conducted in the county in which the crimes are alleged to have occurred. Proof of venue is essential to a criminal prosecution.” The record in this case, however, “did not prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt,” Martin’s attorney argues in briefs. When A.C. was asked at trial, “where do you live?” she responded, “Dawsonville, Georgia.” When the State prosecutor later asked, “do you know what county your house is in?” the girl replied, “in Dawsonville.” She went on to testify about various incidents involving Martin that allegedly occurred in her house, which were the basis for his charges. While Dawsonville is the county seat of Dawson County, the city of Dawsonville is not located entirely in one county. Rather it lies in at least four counties, the attorney argues. “As noted in Martin’s petition, there is no dispute that A.C.’s home was in Dawsonville, and Martin’s aunt’s testimony shows that part of Dawsonville is in Dawson County. However, the State presented no evidence, nor was there any stipulation or judicial cognition, which showed that Dawsonville – or A.C.’s home – was located entirely within Dawson County,” the attorney argues. “Thus, because ‘the State’s evidence clearly authorized the jury to find that the crimes occurred in [Dawsonville], but failed to mention either that the crimes were committed in [Dawson] County or that [Dawsonville] is located entirely within [Dawson] County,’ the evidence was not sufficient to convict Martin.” The habeas court tried to “sidestep the multi-county issue” by stating that during the trial, the State “did in fact offer circumstantial evidence to prove venue,” including evidence that a 911 call from the victim’s mother resulted in an investigation by the Dawson County Sheriff’s Department and the Dawson County Department of Family and Children’s Services. Also, the testimony of A.C.’s father “created an inference” that his home is located in Dawson County. However, none of the circumstantial evidence clearly delineates in which county the alleged crime occurred, the attorney argues. “The evidence therefore reflects that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that venue in Martin’s case lay in Dawson County.” The habeas court therefore erred and should have found that his attorney was ineffective and “Martin was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to raise venue as an issue on appeal.”

The Attorney General’s office argues for the warden and State that the habeas court properly ruled that appellate counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of venue. Martin has failed to meet his burden of proving not only that his attorney was deficient, but also that there is a likely probability the outcome of his trial would have been different had it not been for his deficiency. After the appeals attorney reviewed the trial transcript and the trial attorney’s file, he noted that venue was a potential issue, “but ultimately raised other grounds that he believed to be the most meritorious,” the State argues. “Petitioner has not shown that decision was unreasonable.” Furthermore, “Petitioner was not prejudiced because the State provided circumstantial evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that venue was proper in Dawson County.” In addition to the fact that the Dawson County Sheriff’s Office and Dawson County child welfare agency responded to the 911 call by A.C.’s mother, Dawson County investigators contacted the father of a second potential victim of Martin’s related to the case. “As public employees, the investigators and DFACS are presumed to have been acting properly within their jurisdiction,” the State contends. “Second, the victim’s father implied in his response to the State’s question regarding the location of the Huddle House, that he left his home in Dawson County and went just across the county line into Pickens County where the Huddle House is located.”

http://accesswdun.com/article/2015/5/309223/scoga-man-says-state-failed-to-proved-venue-in-dawsonville-sex-assault-case