Julio Cesar Gallegos-Munoz v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: April 14, 2025
• Docket: A23A0713
• Status: Published

Opinion

FOURTH DIVISION DILLARD, P. J., RICKMAN, P. J., and PIPKIN, J.

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. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

April 14, 2025

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A23A0713. GALLEGOS-MUNOZ v. STATE.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Julio Cesar Gallegos-Munoz was convicted by a jury of child

molestation. He appealed to this Court, arguing that the trial court wrongly excluded

evidence that the victim previously made an allegedly false accusation of sexual

misconduct against another individual, and that he was entitled to a new trial on

account of this error. Gallegos-Munoz v. State, 369 Ga. App. 277 (893 SE2d 176) (2023).

We affirmed his conviction and the denial of his motion for new trial, and Gallegos-

Munoz filed a petition of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which that court

granted. Id. at 281-282.

Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that both this Court and the trial

court applied the wrong standard in determining the admissibility of the prior allegation evidence. Gallegos-Munoz v. State, 319 Ga. 803 (906 SE2d 711) (2024). Accordingly, the

Supreme Court vacated our “judgment that affirmed the trial court’s judgment and

affirmed the denial of Gallegos-Munoz’s motion for a new trial [and] direct[ed] us to

vacate the trial court’s rulings and remand the case for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion.” Id. at 820 (2) (f). Accordingly, our judgment in this case is hereby

vacated, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is hereby made the

judgment of this Court. Consistent therewith, we hereby vacate the trial court’s

December 3, 2018 order barring the admission of alleged prior false accusation

evidence, and we likewise vacate the portion of the trial court’s order denying Gallegos-

Munoz’s motion for new trial on the ground that it erred by excluding such evidence.

The trial court is ordered upon remand to reconsider these rulings under the framework

set out by the Supreme Court in its opinion, including conducting further proceedings

and hearings on this issue as the trial court deems necessary.

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. Division Per Curiam. All Judges

Concur.