Sagar Sharma v. State

── Sagar Sharma v. State ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General THIRD DIVISION DILLARD, P. J., GOBEIL 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.gov/rules June 8, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0376. SHARMA v. THE STATE. DILLARD, Presiding Judge. After trial, a jury convicted Sagar Sharma on one count of child molestation and one count of sexual battery on a child under the age of 16 years. On appeal, Sharma challenges his convictions and the denial of his motion for new trial. More precisely, he contends the trial court erred in denying his right to be present at a critical stage of the proceedings—a hearing on whether to admit evidence of his prior acts, during which it ruled his counsel had express permission to waive his presence. For the following reasons, we affirm Sharma’s convictions and the denial of his motion for new trial.  Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,1 the record shows that sometime in late 2015 or early 2016, N. C. and her parents—all of whom are immigrants from India—moved to New York City and then to Alabama, where they met Sharma. Knowing the family was looking for a place to live (as well as seeking employment), Sharma offered both of N. C.’s parents jobs at a convenience store he owned in Crawfordville, Georgia. Sharma also told N. C.’s family they could live in a nearby home he owned. N. C.’s family accepted Sharma’s offer and moved to Crawfordville. Initially, N. C.’s family stayed in the same home with Sharma and his family, but the Sharma family later moved to Macon. Despite residing in Macon, Sharma returned to Crawfordville once a week and worked in the store’s office. In March 2016, when N. C. was 14 years old, Sharma helped her with her studies (particularly English). As a result, Sharma spent a lot of time with the child. Eventually, Sharma started sending N. C. sexually suggestive text messages. Later on, during their tutoring sessions, Sharma began rubbing N. C.’s legs and hugging her. On one occasion, Sharma tried to get N. C. to remove her clothes as 1 See, e.g., Libri v. State, 346 Ga. App. 420, 421 (816 SE2d 417) (2018) (noting when a conviction is appealed, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence). 2 he hugged her. And on all of those occasions, Sharma warned N. C. not to tell anyone about his actions, threatening that “things would not be good for her and her family” if she did so. Over the course of the next month, N. C. became emotionally withdrawn and often cried in class such that her teachers noticed and asked her what was wrong. N. C. told one of her teachers that she wanted to die and did not want to be touched by anyone; but she did not disclose why she felt this way. N. C.’s parents were promptly notified about her comments, but she did not disclose Sharma’s conduct to them. In fact, Sharma drove N. C.’s father to the school that day to pick up his daughter; and later, after picking up N. C. and then dropping her father off at the store to return to work, he again warned her not to tell anyone about his actions. A few weeks later, in early April 2016, Sharma and N. C. were alone in her family’s home when he took off his shirt, removed N. C.’s shirt, and began touching her breasts and hugging her. While this was happening, N. C.’s mother arrived home and was surprised to find the door locked. As she knocked on the door and attempted to unlock it, she saw Sharma buttoning up his shirt and leaving the room where he