Hawkins v. State

After a bench trial, Michael Hawkins was found guilty of failing to obey a traffic control device in violation of OCGA § 40-6-20. On appeal, Hawkins contends that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict of acquittal on the ground that the Kennesaw State University Police Department officer who ticketed him did not have authority to enforce the traffic laws on Georgia’s public roads. Hawkins also contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to ask him if he was calling a police officer a liar. Finding no error, we affirm. Viewed in a light favorable to the verdict,1 the evidence reveals that on August 23, 2005 Michael Hawkins drove his vehicle into a turn lane on Chastain Road eastbound, preparing to turn left onto Frey Road heading northbound. Officer Goode of the Cobb County Police Department, who was on a motorcycle directly behind Hawkins’ vehicle at the intersection, testified that after the traffic light turned red, Hawkins entered the intersection and attempted to turn left. Hawkins’ vehicle was then struck by a vehicle driving westbound on Chastain Road. Shortly after the collision, Officer Washington of the Kennesaw State University Police Department arrived on the scene to investigate. After interviewing witnesses, he issued citations to both Hawkins and the driver who collided with him for failing to obey a traffic control device. At trial, when asked how close the intersection was to the university, Officer Washington replied, “it borders the University.”

1. Hawkins contends that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict of acquittal on the ground that Officer Washington did not have authority to enforce the law on public roads of this State. On appeal from a bench trial, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.2 We will uphold a trial court’s decision not to direct a verdict of acquittal if there is any evidence to support it,3 and we will not overturn its ruling regarding which questions to allow during cross-examination unless there has been an abuse of discretion.4