Hale v. State

The trial court's error in informing the jury of the existence of excluded Intoxilyzer 5000 test results when instructing the jury on the differences between Georgia's two types of DUI, was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Walter Douglas Hale was convicted by a jury on one count of passing in a no-passing zone1 and one count of driving under the influence less-safe.2 Hale appeals his convictions, arguing that the trial court erred by 1 denying his motion to suppress the results of an alco-sensor test conducted prior to receiving his Miranda warnings and 2 informing the jury as to the existence of excluded evidence during preliminary instructions. For the reasons noted infra , we reject these arguments and affirm Hale’s convictions. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,3 the record shows that Hale was traveling on his motorcycle around 1 a.m. when he decided to pass another vehicle by crossing over a double-yellow line. A City of McDonough police officer observed this illegal maneuver and subsequently stopped Hale in the parking lot of his ultimate destination, a restaurant/bar frequented by other bikers. The officer immediately smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage on Hale, and after being questioned, Hale admitted to having consumed one or two alcoholic beverages approximately two hours earlier.

The officer then asked Hale to perform three field sobriety tests i.e. , the horizontal-gaze nystagmus, the one-leg stand, and the walk-and-turn, and Hale exhibited clues of impairment during each of them. Thereafter, the officer inquired as to whether someone could retrieve Hale’s motorcycle for him, and then answered in the affirmative after Hale asked if he would be going to jail that evening. Hale then demanded a breath or blood test, and the officer administered a portable alco-sensor breath test, which returned a positive result for the consumption of alcohol. Additionally, the officer concluded that Hale’s manifestations were consistent with alcohol consumption and that he appeared to be a “less-safe driver.”

Hale v. State

The trial court's error in informing the jury of the existence of excluded Intoxilyzer 5000 test results when instructing the jury on the differences between Georgia's two types of DUI, was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report