The boy thought this was strange as he had not been especially good that day. [Cits.] This [evidence] is admissible to show bent of mind and lustful disposition ․, even if the content of the material does not relate to children. Walsh said he wanted to speak to the boy to compliment him on his good behavior. Owners of assume no responsibility (and expressly disclaim responsibility) for updating this site to keep information current or to ensure the accuracy or completeness of any posted information.
“Furthermore, if evidence is relevant, no matter how slightly, it generally should be admitted and its weight left to the jury.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Kelley v. Later, when the boy was attempting to conceal a note he had received from a friend, Walsh came over to the boy's desk, put his hand under the paper and held the boy's penis for a matter of seconds until the boy pulled his chair away.
Walsh then grabbed the boy's buttocks, making him feel uncomfortable.
He testified that in his experience, child molesters often keep a trophy or some token to remind themselves of their victims, and that trophy sometimes is a photograph of the victim. But because the addresses indicated that they were, as Mc Hugh phrased it, “pathways to pictures” the officers were entitled to seize the papers pending further investigation. (c) Walsh next contends that the three slips of paper were not subject to seizure because they were private papers within the meaning of OCGA § 17-5-21.
Mc Hugh further explained that he obtained the warrant because he was seeking photographs showing physical contact between Walsh and the alleged Walton County victims. “The police officers were not compelled to overlook relevant evidence ․ simply because it was not specifically [listed] in the search warrant. The Supreme Court of Georgia has held, however, that the private papers referred to in that statute are restricted to those covered by an applicable privilege.
Under these circumstances, Walsh's wife had the authority to consent to the seizure of the computer, because she had common authority over the premises as well as over the computer itself.
Thus, the computer was not Walsh's alone but was available to the entire family.
In his first enumeration, Walsh asserts that a search warrant issued for his home on November 8, 1996, lacked probable cause and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. Mc Hugh's affidavit stated that on October 25, 1996, he was informed by the Walton County Department of Family & Children Services (DFCS) that several male students at Social Circle Elementary School had complained that they had been fondled by Walsh, a teacher at the school.
The search warrant was obtained by Sergeant Mike Mc Hugh of the Walton County Sheriff's Office.
These materials included nude pictures of young men and explicit transcripts from homosexual Internet chatroom sessions. Walsh then kept all three boys in the classroom after dismissing the rest of the class to recess and gave the boys candy.
Walsh argues in his next enumeration that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude materials obtained from a search of his computer. A girl in the class witnessed Walsh touching the boy and testified that Walsh had touched the boy on the penis.
“This court ․ has consistently held in child molestation cases that [materials] showing natural and unnatural sex acts ․ can have a tendency to show a bent of mind toward sexual activity. The boy testified that Walsh's actions qualified as a “bad touch.”The third boy, who was 13, was also called up to Walsh's desk that day. Moreover, the issue of whether the touching was sexual in nature is for the jury.