Coghlan v. State
319 Ga. App. 551
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Coghlan was charged with DUI, driving on the wrong side of the road, and reckless driving.
- At trial, the court acquitted Coghlan of the wrong-side-of-road charge and the jury found her not guilty of reckless driving but guilty of DUI.
- Two police officers testified, describing Coghlan’s stop, demeanor, and odor of alcohol; Coghlan drove off from the initial stop and was pursued.
- Coghlan exhibited unsteady balance, slurred speech, bloodshot watery eyes, and admitted recent drinking; she refused a breath test and the machine showed no reading.
- Evidence relied on included driving behavior, refusal to submit to testing, officer observations, and the odor of alcohol; no field sobriety tests were introduced.
- Coghlan challenged sufficiency, closing-argument remarks by the prosecutor, and sentencing as vindictive; the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for DUI | Coghlan argues insufficiency due to lack of test results. | Coghlan asserts evidence did not show impairment. | Evidence supported DUI under less safe standard. |
| Closing argument – smoke and mirrors remark | Coghlan contends remarks disparaged defense counsel and were improper. | Coghlan argues statements were improper attacks on counsel and not tied to evidence. | No reversible error; argument within allowable closing-range given context. |
| Closing argument – remaining disputed remarks | Coghlan argues golden-rule and personal opinion in closing were improper. | Coghlan contends some remarks exceeded latitude or were unfounded. | No reversible error; remaining remarks fell within wide latitude; objections not preserved for two items. |
| Vindictiveness of sentence | Coghlan claims enhanced sentence punished her for going to trial. | State argues no vindictive punitive action; record supports discretion. | No unconstitutional vindictiveness; sentence was within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 301 Ga. App. 484 (Ga. App. 2009) (police may testify to sobriety state and impairment)
- Adams v. State, 283 Ga. 298 (Ga. 2008) (prosecutor latitude in closing argument)
- Gissendaner v. State, 272 Ga. 704 (Ga. 2000) (permissible range of closing argument is very wide)
- Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 547 (Ga. 1997) (inferences from evidence in closing arguments allowed)
- McClain v. State, 267 Ga. 378 (Ga. 1996) (permissible to urge jury to convict for safety of community)
- Banks v. State, 281 Ga. 678 (Ga. 2007) (wide latitude in closing argument; not reversible error)
- Johnson v. State, 288 Ga. 803 (Ga. 2011) (failure to object waives issue; plain-error review not favored)
- Duncan v. State, 305 Ga. App. 268 (Ga. App. 2010) (testimony and interpretation of impairment evidence)