Blanchard v. State
324 Ga. App. 280
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Blanchard was stopped after a tire blew out; officers found him passed out behind the wheel at his home, seat belt on, key in ignition.
- Officers observed strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, confusion, poor coordination, glassy bloodshot eyes; portable breath test was positive; he refused a second test at the station and was arrested for DUI (less safe by alcohol) and unsafe tires.
- At trial Blanchard testified he drank only a small amount of Four Loko and insisted he was not intoxicated; jury convicted him on both counts.
- At the motion for new trial hearing, Blanchard’s physician’s assistant (PA) testified that extreme hypo- or hyperglycemia can mimic intoxication but could not say diabetes would cause a false positive on a breath test.
- Trial counsel testified Blanchard disclosed his diabetes three days before trial; counsel did not seek a continuance or funds for an expert but had pursued a fatigue defense and elicited testimony from the State’s expert that diabetic symptoms can resemble intoxication.
- The trial court denied the motion for new trial; Blanchard appealed alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to obtain or present diabetic-expert testimony and for not requesting a continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a continuance or funds to retain an expert after learning of Blanchard’s diabetes | Counsel should have sought a continuance and expert funds to investigate diabetes as an alternative explanation for observed impairment | Counsel reasonably integrated diabetes into a preexisting fatigue defense and elicited similar concessions from the State’s expert; tactic was reasonable | No ineffective assistance; trial strategy was reasonable and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to call Blanchard’s treating PA as a witness | PA’s testimony could have supported a diabetes-based explanation and raised reasonable doubt | PA’s testimony was cumulative of the State’s expert and would not have changed the outcome | No prejudice shown; cumulative evidence does not establish ineffective assistance |
| Whether failure to present diabetes-related expert testimony prejudiced the defense (Strickland prejudice prong) | Expert testimony would have created reasonable probability of a different outcome | Blanchard offered no affirmative showing that such testimony would have altered the verdict | No reasonable probability of a different outcome; prejudice not established |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the new trial motion based on ineffective assistance | Trial court should have granted new trial because counsel’s omissions were deficient and prejudicial | Trial court’s factual findings on counsel performance and prejudice are not clearly erroneous | Denial affirmed; trial court’s findings upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynch v. State, 291 Ga. 555 (Strickland two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice test)
- Sarratt v. State, 299 Ga. App. 568 (trial judge’s findings on counsel performance reviewed for clear error)
- Carter v. State, 265 Ga. App. 44 (presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within reasonable professional assistance)
- Rolland v. State, 321 Ga. App. 661 (failure to call expert not prejudicial when testimony would be cumulative)
- Gibson v. State, 290 Ga. 6 (defendant must show how omitted evidence would change outcome)
- Wesley v. State, 286 Ga. 355 (no ineffective assistance where evidence would be cumulative)
- White v. State, 293 Ga. App. 241 (appellant must affirmatively show how counsel’s failure affected outcome)