Crusselle v. State

The trial court did not err in denying defendant's mistrial motion, on grounds that the state made an improper closing argument, because the comments were permissible and the comments most likely did not contribute to the verdict.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

George W. Crusselle, III, was found guilty by a jury of driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe for him to drive, driving 90 mph in a 55 mph zone, and failing to have his driver’s license in his immediate possession. After a hearing, the trial court denied Crusselle’s amended motion for new trial. Crusselle appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for DUI less safe and enumerating other errors. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment. On appellate review of a criminal conviction, “we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence.”1 So viewed, the record shows that around midnight on March 9, 2008, Officer John Fox of the DeKalb County Police Department, Special Operations Division, observed Crusselle speeding on Interstate 285. When Crusselle stopped his car and stepped out, Fox observed that Crusselle was unsteady on his feet, his clothes were in disarray, his face was flushed, and his eyes were “bloodshot, watery and glazed.” Fox also noticed “an extremely strong odor of an alcoholic beverage about Crusselle’s body that became stronger as he attempted to speak.” Fox testified that Crusselle appeared to be “in a confused state” and that certain words were mumbled. When Fox asked Crusselle for his driver’s license, Crusselle presented only a Georgia identification card, which he insisted was a driver’s license.

Crusselle’s passenger, Kory Rykman, told Fox that Crusselle was “driving like a fool” and that he had asked him to slow down. Rykman also told the officer that he had seen Crusselle “drinking maybe a beer about thirty or forty-five minutes ago” while he and Crusselle were playing “beer pong,” a drinking game, at a housewarming party at a friend’s house.

Crusselle v. State

The trial court did not err in denying defendant's mistrial motion, on grounds that the state made an improper closing argument, because the comments were permissible and the comments most likely did not contribute to the verdict.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report