Hatley v. State
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, and two counts of sexual battery against a person under sixteen. On appeal, defendant asserted, inter alia, the "Child Hearsay Statute," OCGA 24-3-16, was unconstitutional because it violated the Confrontation Clause. The court agreed with defendant that the statute did not, as construed in previous cases and as applied in this case, comport with the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. However, the right of confrontation could be satisfied by construing the statute to require pretrial notice of the Sate's intent to use a child victim's hearsay statements. The court concluded that the child's statements to her mother were nontestimonial, whereas the child's statements to the forensic interviewer, made several weeks after the crimes, was testimonial. The statements made by the child and her mother to the police at the scene of the crime could not be categorized easily because the moment when police neutralized any threat to the public was unclear. Nonetheless, the court need not make that determination because even if the child's statements to the forensic examiner, and the statements made by the child and her mother to the police were admitted erroneously, the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.