Denstaedt v. State

Defense counsel reasonably may have failed to anticipate the State's hearsay objection to an expert's testimony regarding the supporting data for an Intoxilyzer 5000's inspection certificates, in light of prior case law.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Matthew Denstaedt was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 grams or more OCGA § 40-6-391 a 5 and acquitted of speeding OCGA § 40-6-181 and driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe to drive OCGA § 40-6-391 a 1. Denstaedt appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel because she failed to admit into evidence at trial print cards generated during a quarterly inspection of the Intoxilyzer 5000 used to test his alcohol concentration. Denstaedt cannot establish prejudice resulting from his trial counsel’s alleged deficient performance, and we therefore affirm.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, Maloney v. State, 317 Ga. App. 460 731 SE2d 133 2012, the evidence at trial showed that at approximately 2:24 a.m. on February 6, 2011, a Duluth police officer conducted a traffic stop after the officer saw Denstaedt driving a car at a high rate of speed as Denstaedt turned onto Georgia Highway 120 from Peachtree Industrial Boulevard. The officer approached the vehicle, and as he advised Denstaedt of the reason for the stop, the officer noticed that Denstaedt was fumbling with his wallet. The officer immediately noticed an overwhelming odor of alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle. When the officer asked Denstaedt about his consumption of alcohol, Denstaedt admitted to consuming three beers. The officer also observed that Denstaedt’s speech was slurred and that his eyes were red and watery.

Denstaedt v. State

Defense counsel reasonably may have failed to anticipate the State's hearsay objection to an expert's testimony regarding the supporting data for an Intoxilyzer 5000's inspection certificates, in light of prior case law.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report