Calandra v. The State

Summary

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed Donald J. Calandra’s convictions for enticing a child for indecent purposes and criminal attempt to commit child molestation. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish asportation, intent, and a substantial step toward child molestation, rejected Calandra’s rule-of-lenity argument, and upheld the admission of prior-acts evidence under Georgia evidence law.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction because Calandra's request that the child return to the bathroom sink constituted sufficient asportation, and the surrounding conduct supported an inference that Calandra intended to commit an indecent act.
2. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for attempted child molestation because grabbing the child and asking him for a kiss could constitute a substantial step toward an immoral or indecent act, and whether the act was immoral or indecent was a jury question informed by the intent behind the act.
3. The rule of lenity did not require resentencing because the statutes defining child molestation and sexual battery do not conflict or create an ambiguity as to which penal provision applies.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence of Calandra's prior acts involving Mangan under Rule 404(b) because the evidence was relevant to intent, sufficiently similar in its relevant features, not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, and supported by sufficient proof.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Calandra's conviction for enticing a child for indecent purposes, including the statutory asportation and intent elements.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Calandra's conviction for criminal attempt to commit felony child molestation, including the substantial-step and immoral-or-indecent-act elements.
3. Whether the rule of lenity required resentencing for attempted sexual battery rather than attempted child molestation.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Calandra's prior criminal acts under OCGA §§ 24-4-404(b) and 24-4-414.

Disposition

affirmed