FIFTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., HODGES and PIPKIN, 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. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules
November 3, 2025
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A25A1021. ROE v. THE STATE.
PIPKIN, Judge.
Appellant Phillip Anthony Roe was convicted at a bench trial of three
misdemeanors: (1) sexual battery; (2) obstruction of a law enforcement officer; and
(3) public drunkenness. Appellant does not challenge his conviction for public
drunkenness. However, he contends that footage from the arresting officer’s body
camera contradicts the testimony of the witnesses at trial, rendering the evidence
insufficient as a matter of due process to support his convictions for sexual battery and
obstruction. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 318-319 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d
560) (1979). He also contends that the testimony, even aside from the allegedly contradictory body-camera footage, was insufficient as a matter of due process to
support his conviction for obstruction. See id. We affirm.
1. The following facts are undisputed. At around 10:00 p.m. on Saturday,
August 6, 2022, Appellant and his fiancée went to a bar in Forsyth County. Appellant
drank four or five vodka shots and a beer, and by 1:00 a.m. on August 7, he was heavily
intoxicated and arguing with a group of men. At around 1:15 a.m., the argument was
escalating to becoming a physical altercation, and the bar’s security guards broke it up.
At the security guards’ request, two officers from the Cumming Police Department
(CPD) who had been dispatched to the bar to respond to an unrelated incident told
Appellant to leave. Appellant’s friend Jonathan Herren led him by the arm through
the crowd towards the front door, followed by the security guards and then the two
CPD officers. As Appellant rounded a corner, he came face-to-face with Chasity
Holbrook. When CPD Sergeant Shaw Bowman rounded the corner, he saw Holbrook
with her right hand balled into a fist as though she was about to punch someone,
although he did not know why. Sgt. Bowman shouted, “I don’t know who you are[,]
but you need to back the f*** up.” Holbrook immediately complied.
2 Once outside the bar, Appellant stopped briefly in front of the door, and Sgt.
Bowman told him that he needed to get in his car. Some of the men whom Appellant
had been arguing with followed him outside, and Sgt. Bowman instructed Appellant
to start walking towards his car to prevent an altercation. Appellant did not do so, and
Sgt. Bowman threatened to arrest him if he did not start to leave. At that point, Herren
grabbed Appellant by his upper body and began physically walking him towards the
lower parking lot where Appellant’s car was parked.
Several minutes later, Appellant began walking back towards the upper parking
lot and the bar, so Sgt. Bowman went down to confront him and again told him to go
and get in his car. Appellant instead stopped and leaned up against a friend’s vehicle
while smoking a cigarette. Sgt. Bowman told Appellant two or three more times that
he needed to get into his car, where his fiancée was waiting, but Appellant refused and
began arguing about who was going to take him home. Sgt. Bowman then sternly told
Appellant to turn around, but when Sgt. Bowman grabbed Appellant’s arm to
handcuff him, Appellant moved away, and Sgt. Bowman took Appellant to the ground.
In the process, Sgt. Bowman sprained three knuckles on his right hand. Sgt. Bowman
ultimately was able to handcuff Appellant and take him into custody.
3 The parties dispute what happened at two discrete points in time: (1) when
Appellant encountered Holbrook in the bar; and (2) when Sgt. Bowman attempted to
handcuff Appellant and took Appellant to the ground. At trial, Holbrook testified that
when Appellant came around the corner and was directly in front of her, he cupped
her breasts with both hands and started smirking. She further testified that she did not
know Appellant, had never met him before, and did not give him permission to touch
her breasts. Sgt. Bowman testified that when he attempted to handcuff Appellant to
place him under arrest, Appellant attempted to pull his arm away, offering “solid
resistance,” which forced Sgt. Bowman to take Appellant to the ground in order to
effectuate the arrest. Sgt. Bowman also testified that he was engaged in the lawful
discharge of his official duties when he was placing Appellant under arrest. In
addition, the State introduced footage from Sgt. Bowman’s chest-mounted body
camera, which was played for the trial court multiple times.
Appellant elected to testify in his own defense. He testified that he did not recall
grabbing Holbrook’s breasts “at all” and did not remember anything about her.
However, he admitted that he remembered Herren guiding him through the crowd
and that “when we turned the corner[,] she just appeared right here.” Appellant was
4 not asked about anything that happened outside the bar. Appellant also called his
fiancée as a witness. She testified that she was behind the CPD officers as Appellant
was being escorted out of the bar, that she did not see Appellant grab Holbrook’s
breasts, and that she had never seen him act that way towards any woman in a bar.
However, she admitted that Appellant was “drunk” and that she did not know
Holbrook and had never spoken to her. She provided no information about what
happened outside the bar aside from her testimony that she was talking to the officers
when Herren initially walked Appellant down to their car.
2. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of due
process to support his conviction for sexual battery because the footage from Sgt.
Bowman’s body camera contradicts Holbrook’s testimony that Appellant grabbed her
breasts. This claim fails.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction as a
matter of due process, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443
U.S. at 319 (emphasis in original). This standard “must be applied with explicit
5 reference to the substantive elements of the criminal offense as defined by state law.”
Id. at 324 n.16. Under OCGA § 16-6-22.1 (b), a person commits the offense of sexual
battery when he “intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the
body of another person without the consent of that person.” Subsection (a) of the
statute defines “intimate parts” to include “the breasts of a female.” Holbrook
testified that Appellant grabbed her breasts without her consent, and Appellant’s use
of two hands and the smirk on his face both support a reasonable inference that he
grabbed Holbrook’s breasts intentionally. Based on this evidence, a rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of sexual battery beyond a reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient as a matter of due process to support
Appellant’s conviction for sexual battery.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FIFTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., HODGES and PIPKIN, 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. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules
November 3, 2025
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A25A1021. ROE v. THE STATE.
PIPKIN, Judge.
Appellant Phillip Anthony Roe was convicted at a bench trial of three
misdemeanors: (1) sexual battery; (2) obstruction of a law enforcement officer; and
(3) public drunkenness. Appellant does not challenge his conviction for public
drunkenness. However, he contends that footage from the arresting officer’s body
camera contradicts the testimony of the witnesses at trial, rendering the evidence
insufficient as a matter of due process to support his convictions for sexual battery and
obstruction. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 318-319 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d
560) (1979). He also contends that the testimony, even aside from the allegedly contradictory body-camera footage, was insufficient as a matter of due process to
support his conviction for obstruction. See id. We affirm.
1. The following facts are undisputed. At around 10:00 p.m. on Saturday,
August 6, 2022, Appellant and his fiancée went to a bar in Forsyth County. Appellant
drank four or five vodka shots and a beer, and by 1:00 a.m. on August 7, he was heavily
intoxicated and arguing with a group of men. At around 1:15 a.m., the argument was
escalating to becoming a physical altercation, and the bar’s security guards broke it up.
At the security guards’ request, two officers from the Cumming Police Department
(CPD) who had been dispatched to the bar to respond to an unrelated incident told
Appellant to leave. Appellant’s friend Jonathan Herren led him by the arm through
the crowd towards the front door, followed by the security guards and then the two
CPD officers. As Appellant rounded a corner, he came face-to-face with Chasity
Holbrook. When CPD Sergeant Shaw Bowman rounded the corner, he saw Holbrook
with her right hand balled into a fist as though she was about to punch someone,
although he did not know why. Sgt. Bowman shouted, “I don’t know who you are[,]
but you need to back the f*** up.” Holbrook immediately complied.
2 Once outside the bar, Appellant stopped briefly in front of the door, and Sgt.
Bowman told him that he needed to get in his car. Some of the men whom Appellant
had been arguing with followed him outside, and Sgt. Bowman instructed Appellant
to start walking towards his car to prevent an altercation. Appellant did not do so, and
Sgt. Bowman threatened to arrest him if he did not start to leave. At that point, Herren
grabbed Appellant by his upper body and began physically walking him towards the
lower parking lot where Appellant’s car was parked.
Several minutes later, Appellant began walking back towards the upper parking
lot and the bar, so Sgt. Bowman went down to confront him and again told him to go
and get in his car. Appellant instead stopped and leaned up against a friend’s vehicle
while smoking a cigarette. Sgt. Bowman told Appellant two or three more times that
he needed to get into his car, where his fiancée was waiting, but Appellant refused and
began arguing about who was going to take him home. Sgt. Bowman then sternly told
Appellant to turn around, but when Sgt. Bowman grabbed Appellant’s arm to
handcuff him, Appellant moved away, and Sgt. Bowman took Appellant to the ground.
In the process, Sgt. Bowman sprained three knuckles on his right hand. Sgt. Bowman
ultimately was able to handcuff Appellant and take him into custody.
3 The parties dispute what happened at two discrete points in time: (1) when
Appellant encountered Holbrook in the bar; and (2) when Sgt. Bowman attempted to
handcuff Appellant and took Appellant to the ground. At trial, Holbrook testified that
when Appellant came around the corner and was directly in front of her, he cupped
her breasts with both hands and started smirking. She further testified that she did not
know Appellant, had never met him before, and did not give him permission to touch
her breasts. Sgt. Bowman testified that when he attempted to handcuff Appellant to
place him under arrest, Appellant attempted to pull his arm away, offering “solid
resistance,” which forced Sgt. Bowman to take Appellant to the ground in order to
effectuate the arrest. Sgt. Bowman also testified that he was engaged in the lawful
discharge of his official duties when he was placing Appellant under arrest. In
addition, the State introduced footage from Sgt. Bowman’s chest-mounted body
camera, which was played for the trial court multiple times.
Appellant elected to testify in his own defense. He testified that he did not recall
grabbing Holbrook’s breasts “at all” and did not remember anything about her.
However, he admitted that he remembered Herren guiding him through the crowd
and that “when we turned the corner[,] she just appeared right here.” Appellant was
4 not asked about anything that happened outside the bar. Appellant also called his
fiancée as a witness. She testified that she was behind the CPD officers as Appellant
was being escorted out of the bar, that she did not see Appellant grab Holbrook’s
breasts, and that she had never seen him act that way towards any woman in a bar.
However, she admitted that Appellant was “drunk” and that she did not know
Holbrook and had never spoken to her. She provided no information about what
happened outside the bar aside from her testimony that she was talking to the officers
when Herren initially walked Appellant down to their car.
2. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of due
process to support his conviction for sexual battery because the footage from Sgt.
Bowman’s body camera contradicts Holbrook’s testimony that Appellant grabbed her
breasts. This claim fails.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction as a
matter of due process, “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443
U.S. at 319 (emphasis in original). This standard “must be applied with explicit
5 reference to the substantive elements of the criminal offense as defined by state law.”
Id. at 324 n.16. Under OCGA § 16-6-22.1 (b), a person commits the offense of sexual
battery when he “intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the
body of another person without the consent of that person.” Subsection (a) of the
statute defines “intimate parts” to include “the breasts of a female.” Holbrook
testified that Appellant grabbed her breasts without her consent, and Appellant’s use
of two hands and the smirk on his face both support a reasonable inference that he
grabbed Holbrook’s breasts intentionally. Based on this evidence, a rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of sexual battery beyond a reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient as a matter of due process to support
Appellant’s conviction for sexual battery.
Appellant resists this straightforward conclusion based on what he claims is
depicted in the footage from Sgt. Bowman’s body camera. Appellant asserts that the
body-camera footage admitted at trial “contradict[s]” Holbrook’s testimony that he
grabbed her breasts. And he contends that “[t]he law is clear that video evidence
trumps testimonial evidence and that conflicting testimonial evidence should be
disregarded,” citing Brooks v. Miller, 78 F4th 1267 (11th Cir. 2023), and Boyd v. State,
6 315 Ga. App. 256 (726 SE2d 746) (2012), as support. However, neither Brooks nor
Boyd involved a due process challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
criminal conviction. See Brooks, 78 F4th at 1272 (affirming in part and reversing in
part trial court’s grant of summary judgment to police officer based on qualified
immunity from plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for false arrest, excessive force, and deliberate
indifference to medical needs); Boyd, 315 Ga. App. at 256-262 (concluding based on
de novo review of videotape of custodial interview that juvenile did not knowingly and
voluntarily waive his right against self-incrimination). Moreover, the United States
Supreme Court has specifically instructed us that “upon judicial review” of the
sufficiency of the evidence to satisfy due process, “all of the evidence is to be
considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319
(emphasis in original). We are not at liberty to substitute the totality-of-the-evidence
review mandated by the United States Supreme Court with the novel videotape-
trumps-testimony approach advanced by Appellant. See Jackson, 433 U.S. at 319
(explaining that requiring reviewing courts to consider “all of the evidence . . . in the
light most favorable to the prosecution” preserves “the factfinder’s role as weigher
of the evidence,” which includes “the responsibility . . . fairly to resolve conflicts in
7 the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic
facts to ultimate facts”) (emphasis omitted). A rational trier of fact could well
conclude, based on the body-camera footage and Holbrook’s testimony, that
Appellant intentionally cupped Holbrook’s breasts with both hands without her
consent. Accordingly, Appellant’s due process challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction for sexual battery fails.
3. Appellant also contends that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of due
process to support his conviction for obstruction of a law enforcement officer. This
claim also fails.
A person commits misdemeanor obstruction of a law enforcement officer when
he “knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer . . . in
the lawful discharge of his or her official duties.” OCGA § 16-10-24 (a). See also
OCGA § 16-1-3 (8.1) (defining “[l]aw enforcement officer”). Sgt. Bowman testified
that when he told Appellant to turn around and grabbed Appellant’s arm to handcuff
him, Appellant tried to pull his arm away, offering “solid resistance.” Sgt. Bowman
also testified that he was engaged in the lawful discharge of his official duties when he
placed Appellant under arrest. Based on this evidence, a rational trier of fact could
8 have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant knowingly and willfully
obstructed or hindered Sgt. Bowman in the lawful discharge of his official duties.
Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient as a matter of due process to support
Appellant’s conviction for misdemeanor obstruction of a law enforcement officer.
Appellant disagrees with this conclusion, primarily because of what he claims
is depicted in the footage from Sgt. Bowman’s body camera. Both parties point us to
the footage from time stamp 33:24 to 34:41, with Appellant emphasizing in particular
the footage from 34:15 to 34:22. According to Appellant, Sgt. Bowman had been
telling him to walk away, and the footage shows that he began to do so before Sgt.
Bowman told him to turn around and attempted to handcuff him. Appellant claims
that “there is no video evidence to support a claim that [he] was resisting or
attempting to pull away” from Sgt. Bowman. As noted above, the body-camera
footage was not the only evidence that the trial court was allowed to consider at trial.
Moreover, as the trial court found in its order denying Appellant’s motion for new
trial, the body-camera footage does not contradict, but rather is consistent with, Sgt.
Bowman’s testimony that Appellant tried to pull his arm away as Sgt. Bowman was
attempting to handcuff him.
9 Appellant also argues that, even if he did try to pull away when Sgt. Bowman
was attempting to arrest him, the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for
obstruction because the State failed to prove that he did so knowingly and willfully.
However, based on Appellant’s repeated refusals to comply with Sgt. Bowman’s
commands and his overall belligerent attitude, a rational jury could find beyond a
reasonable doubt that Appellant acted knowingly and willfully when he tried to pull
away as Sgt. Bowman was attempting to arrest him. Accordingly, Appellant’s due
process challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for
obstruction of a law enforcement officer fails.
Judgment affirmed. Hodges, J., concurs. McFadden, P. J., concurs fully and
specially.
10 A25A1021. ROE v. THE STATE.
MCFADDEN, Presiding Judge, concurring fully and specially.
I concur fully but reluctantly. The video evidence leaves me troubled by these
convictions, particularly the conviction for obstruction. But I must defer to the finder
of fact.
The sexual battery conviction arises out of an interaction that occurred while
two officers, along with one of Roe’s friends, were escorting him out of a bar. But Roe
was not arrested until several minutes later, during a second encounter with the
arresting officer. That second encounter occurred after the arresting officer determined that
Roe’s fiancée, rather than one of his friends, would be driving him home. The officer
then approached Roe, who was waiting by his friend’s car and smoking a cigarette;
informed him that his fiancée would be driving him home; and directed him to go to
her car.
Roe’s response was argumentative but not combative. After a few exchanges,
the officer abruptly administered a take-down. From the ground, Roe immediately
announced, “I’m givin’ up,” while the arresting officer threatened to tase bystanders.
But the officer testified that Roe had tried to pull his arm away, offering “solid
resistance.” I know from my own life experience that it would be extraordinarily
difficult, particularly under these circumstances, even for someone trained to receive
such techniques without resisting, to refrain from pulling their arm back.
Nevertheless I must defer to the finder of fact. The officer’s testimony is
sufficient to sustain the trial court’s judgment of conviction under the applicable
standard of review. See Price v. State, 313 Ga. 578, 582 n.2 (872 SE2d 275) (2022) (on
sufficiency review, after a bench trial, the judgment of conviction will be upheld “as
long as there is some competent evidence, even though contradicted, to support each
fact necessary to make out the [s]tate’s case”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2 The trial court has the authority to grant a new trial, even after a bench trial,
Smith v. State, 350 Ga. App. 336, 337 (1) (829 SE2d 408) (2019), on the basis that the
judgment of conviction is “contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and
equity,” OCGA § 5-5-20, or “decidedly and strongly against the weight of the
evidence.” OCGA § 5-5-21. We do not.
And it is vital to the rule of law that all courts, trial and appellate, respect the
limits of their authority.