Airick J. Creighton v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 1, 2014
DocketA14A0594
StatusPublished

This text of Airick J. Creighton v. State (Airick J. Creighton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Airick J. Creighton v. State, (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

FOURTH DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MILLER and DILLARD, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

July 1, 2014

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A14A0594. CREIGHTON v. THE STATE.

MILLER, Judge.

Following a jury trial, Airick Joseph Creighton was convicted of one count of

aggravated child molestation (OCGA § 16-6-4 (a (1), (c)), one count of pimping

(OCGA § 16-6-11), and possession of less than one ounce of marijuana (OCGA § 16-

13-30 (j)).1 Creighton appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, contending

that the evidence was insufficient, the State failed to prove venue and the trial court

erred in denying his request to charge on mistake of fact. For the reasons that follow,

we affirm.

1 Creighton was acquitted on a second pimping charge and a charge of keeping a place of prostitution. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,2 the evidence shows

that the then 14-year-old victim, T. S., lived with her great aunt in DeKalb County.

In June 2012, T. S. met and started corresponding with Creighton through Facebook.

At some point, T. S. told Creighton that she was prostituting.

One day toward the end of July 2012, T. S. called Creighton and asked him for

a ride. Creighton picked T. S. up in Mechanicsville and took her to a plaza in

Gwinnett County. That same night, Creighton took T. S. to the Rite 4 Us motel in

Gwinnett County where T. S. spent the night in a room with Creighton and Rodshaid

Wright.

At some point, Creighton took pictures of T. S. on his computer, and T. S. used

Creighton’s computer to post four advertisements with those pictures on an adult

entertainment website in early August 2012. The phone numbers listed in the

advertisements rang Creighton’s cell phone number.

T. S. met men through the advertisements, spoke with them on Creighton’s

phone, told them to come to Room 330 at the Extended Stay motel in Norcross in

Gwinnett County and negotiated a price over the phone. At the motel, T. S. performed

2 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2 sexual activities in exchange for money. T. S. always asked Creighton to leave the

motel room during these activities.

Meanwhile, on August 6, 2012, T. S.’s aunt learned that T. S. was at Motel 6

in Norcross, which is located in Gwinnett County. By this time, T. S. had been away

from her aunt’s home for seven or eight days. The aunt showed a couple of people at

the motel a flyer with T. S.’s picture on it, and they told the aunt that T. S. was in a

particular room. The aunt then called police and gave them a physical description of

T. S. and gave them the room number—Room 203.

As the aunt was leaving the motel that night, she saw T. S. leaving the motel,

however, T. S. disappeared before the aunt could reach her. When the responding

officer arrived at the motel, he saw two black females on the upper balcony. The

officer noticed that one of the females had blonde streaks in her hair which matched

the description of T.S. given by her aunt. The officer then spoke with T.S.’s aunt, who

told the officer that T. S. left Room 203 and went towards the front of the motel.

The officer was unable to locate T. S. that night, however, he spoke with

Wright, who had rented the motel room. The officer also looked around the motel

room with Wright’s permission and observed an open laptop computer on the bed.

The computer showed a picture of a girl with blonde hair who matched the

3 description of T. S. The officer then ran a warrant check on Wright, discovered that

Wright had an active warrant for a recent burglary, and arrested Wright on the

outstanding warrant.

After a detective arrived, Wright consented to a search of his motel room. Since

a TV and two computers had been stolen in the recent burglary, the detective was

curious about the laptop he saw on the bed. Creighton, who was present during the

search, told the detective that the laptop was his, so the detective opened the laptop

to verify that it belonged to Creighton. The laptop was logged into T. S.’s Facebook

account. The laptop also had multiple tabbed pages open on Internet Explorer,

including Backpage.com, which listed ads for prostitution.

Later that day, the detective viewed T. S.’s public Facebook profile. The

detective saw that T. S. and Creighton were friends and had communicated with each

other on Facebook in the days prior to August 6. At that point, the detective suspected

that Creighton and T. S. were involved in prostitution. The detective wrote up a

report, printed out T. S.’s and Creighton’s Facebook profile and gave the information

to the vice unit for further investigation.

A special investigator with the Gwinnett County vice unit searched the internet

looking for escort advertisements in the Norcross area, and found the advertisements

4 that T. S. had posted. On August 7, the investigator called the phone number listed

in one of the advertisements and spoke to T. S. During the conversation, the

investigator learned that T. S. was at the Extended Stay in Norcross and she was

available for an hour. The investigator told T. S. that he would call her when he was

off work and in the area.

A couple of hours later, the investigator called T. S. T. S. told the investigator

that she was still taking appointments, but was not currently at her motel. The

investigator told T. S. that he would stay in the area and asked her to call him if she

got back within a reasonable time. The investigator did not hear from T. S again until

after midnight when she texted him to say she was back in her motel.

The investigator next tried to contact T. S. around 3:00 p.m. on August 8, 2012.

Another female answered the phone, and gave the investigator a different phone

number where he could reach T. S. When the investigator called that number, T. S.

answered. T. S. agreed to meet the investigator at her motel later that day, so the

investigator assembled a team of officers and headed to the Extended Stay in

Norcross.

When the investigator arrived at the Extended Stay motel, he called T. S. who

said she was available in Room 330 which was Creighton’s room. The investigator

5 saw Creighton and one of his friends walking along the third-floor balcony in the area

of where the room was located. The investigator knocked on the door to Creighton’s

room, entered and walked through it, checking for weapons and any one hiding

inside. The investigator then exchanged money with T. S. and gave the takedown

signal.

The takedown team took Creighton and the other man into custody. During a

consent search of Creighton’s room, the investigator found two of Creighton’s

baseball hats that were pictured in one of T. S.’s Backpage.com advertisements. In

Creighton’s room, the investigator also found two condoms, Creighton’s cell phone,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Burroughs v. State
665 S.E.2d 4 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)
Pippins v. State
588 S.E.2d 278 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)
Schultz v. State
599 S.E.2d 247 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)
Veasey v. State
507 S.E.2d 799 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Johnson v. State
683 S.E.2d 659 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Airick J. Creighton v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/airick-j-creighton-v-state-gactapp-2014.