☢ test - Í

6. DEFENDANT’S SEXUAL HISTORY Duncan v. State, 315 Ga.App. 67, 726 S.E.2d 558 (March 22, 2012). Physical precedent only. Conviction for attempted child molestation affirmed; no error in admitted defendant’s “statement that he had ‘a problem with homosexual pornography in the computer’ from the age of 12 to 16, then later lost interest. We do not agree. Duncan, who was 21 at the time of the trial, admitted in a statement to police that he had watched and been aroused by homosexual pornography from the age of 12 until he was 16. ‘[I]f 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. State, 233 Ga.App. 244, 250(4) (503 S.E.2d 881) (1998). We have ‘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. This [evidence] is admissible to show bent of mind and lustful disposition.’ (Punctuation omitted.) Burris v. State, 204 Ga.App. 806, 808(1) (420 S.E.2d 582) (1992). Accordingly, we find no error in the admission of this statement.” Pike v. State, 299 Ga.App. 285, 682 S.E.2d 373 (July 20, 2009). At defendant’s child molestation trial for, among other things, taking nude photographs of his daughter, trial court properly admitted into evidence “numerous pictures that depicted his wife in various stages of undress and showed her tattoos.” Despite defendant’s claim that the photos were irrelevant, “the photographs complained of supported the state's theory that Pike had a bent of mind and lustful disposition that involved taking pictures of family members in stages of undress. Simpson v. State, 271 Ga. 772, 773-774(1) (523 S.E.2d 320) (1999) (pictures are admissible to show a defendant's bent of mind and lustful disposition).” Finnan v. State, 291 Ga.App. 486, 662 S.E.2d 269 (May 12, 2008). “[T]he testimony regarding Finnan’s attraction to feet and ‘foot fetish’ was relevant to support the charges that he kissed A.B.’s feet with the intent to arouse such ‘fetish’ and that he rubbed A.B.’s feet on his genitals. See Simpson v. State, 271 Ga. 772, 773(1) (523 S.E.2d 320) (1999) (evidence admissible to show ‘defendant’s lustful disposition toward the sexual activity with which he is charged or his bent of mind to engage in that activity.’)” Herring v State, 288 Ga.App. 169, 653 S.E.2d 494 (October 10, 2007). Defendant’s child molestation conviction reversed; trial court erred in allowing State to present evidence of defendant’s sexual history (his virginity, use of pornography, absence of relationships with adult females) not related to his alleged child molestation. “As it announced in opening argument, the State’s theory was that because Herring was incapable of forming adult sexual attachments, he was more likely to molest children. By portraying Herring as sexually inexperienced and frustrated, the State hoped to show that Herring had ‘a motive to engage in sexual behavior with a weaker, compliant victim when suddenly presented with an opportunity’ – that is, that Herring’s sexual disposition led him to commit the crime charged. This topic was likewise impermissible in the absence of evidence linking it to the charged offense. The trial court was therefore correct when it barred explicit references to Herring’s virginity, but erred when it allowed the State to inquire in less specific ways about Herring’s sexual history. See Simpson [ v. State, 271 Ga. 772, 774(1) (523 S.E.2d 320) (1999)] , (interest in sexual activity does not justify admission of evidence showing such interest in the absence of a link to the crime charged); Tyler [ February 24, 2004, below ] (although testimony that defendant was himself a victim of child molestation ‘technically may not have constituted bad character evidence,’ it placed character in issue ‘in a way that was clearly harmful and irrelevant’).” Osmer v. State, 275 Ga.App. 506, 621 S.E.2d 519 (September 15, 2005). Physical precedent only; Phipps specially concurs, disagreeing on the point herein. Evidence that defendant, charged with child molestation, admitted to witness that defendant himself had been molested as a child, was admissible and relevant. Defendant contended that the victim himself molested victim’s younger sister, then fabricated charge against defendant when defendant reported victim’s offense. “Osmer testified during cross-examination that he had never called the authorities because the abuse had been reported by someone else, and it was not his fault that the state did nothing about it. The trial court then permitted the prosecutor to show that Osmer’s stepfather molested him beginning from the time he was eight years old for about two years, and that the abuse stopped when he reported it to a school counselor. The line of questioning was relevant to show that Osmer was well aware that he could have stopped the abuse of the little girl by reporting it to the proper authorities and, thus, to refute his theory that his cousin had fabricated the allegations out of a desire for revenge.” Distinguishing Tyler (February 24, 2004), below. Tyler v. State, 266 Ga.App. 221, 596 S.E.2d 651 (February 24, 2004). Prosecutor elicited hearsay testimony from detective, saying that defendant’s wife mentioned that she and defendant “had both been molested” as children. Held, trial court erred in not taking some curative action; sustaining defendant’s objection was insufficient. “[E]ven though the