Danley v. the State
342 Ga. App. 61
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Early-morning altercation: Danley sexually groped a woman, struck her twice when the husband intervened, then left in his car; two 911 calls were placed by the husband.
- Officer located Danley driving away, conducted a stop; deputy observed signs of intoxication, performed HGN and walk‑and‑turn tests (Danley showed six HGN clues and failed field tests), positive Alcosensor, and later a warrant blood test showed BAC 0.253.
- Danley was charged with sexual battery (later dropped), battery (acquitted), DUI (per se and less‑safe), and driving with a suspended license (stipulated at trial).
- Trial rulings: two 911 calls admitted as non‑testimonial; a later sheriff return call excluded as testimonial/hearsay because the emergency had ended and the declarant (husband) was unavailable.
- The State introduced a December 2011 DUI conviction and related officer testimony under OCGA § 24‑4‑417 to show knowledge/intent; Danley objected.
- Danley sought a justification instruction; the court required him to admit the elements of less‑safe DUI before giving that charge. Trial counsel did not file a motion for new trial and remains appellate counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Danley (Appellant) | State (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI and driving on suspended license | Evidence insufficient | Evidence (observations, field tests, positive breath, BAC 0.253, stipulation) sufficient | Convictions affirmed; evidence legally sufficient under Jackson standard |
| Probable cause to stop/arrest and failure to suppress evidence | Stop/arrest lacked probable cause; directed verdict should be granted | Danley waived suppression by not filing pretrial motion; officers had grounds from 911 and impairment indicators | Waiver of suppression; stop/arrest and arrest supported by observations; directed verdict denied |
| Exclusion of sheriff’s return call (Confrontation/Hearsay) | Return call was relevant and exclusion prejudicial | Return call was testimonial (emergency ended); declarant unavailable; hearsay excluded | Trial court did not abuse discretion: return call testimonial and inadmissible; two 911 calls already admitted; any error harmless as to battery acquittal |
| Admission of prior (Dec. 2011) DUI conviction | Prior DUI should be excluded as unduly prejudicial | Admissible under OCGA §24‑4‑417 to show knowledge/intent and prior refusal; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice | Admission proper: trial court acted within discretion per Rule 417 and balancing under Rule 403 |
| Requirement to admit DUI elements to get justification instruction | Court improperly forced admission of guilt | Justification is an affirmative defense that requires admission of the act; defendant may choose to admit to obtain the charge | No error: legal principle correct; Danley voluntarily admitted elements and received the justification charge |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel raised on appeal | Trial counsel ineffective (raised by counsel on appeal) | Claim waived because not raised in trial court; appellate record insufficient; remedy is habeas | Claim not addressed on direct appeal; must be raised in appropriate post‑conviction/habeas proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishing testimonial vs non‑testimonial 911 statements)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (primary‑purpose test for ongoing emergency)
- State v. Frost, 297 Ga. 296 (Rule 417: prior DUI refusal admissible to show knowledge)
- Thomas v. State, 284 Ga. 540 (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
- Cuyuch v. State, 284 Ga. 290 (inadmissible testimonial hearsay requires reversal when prejudicial)
- Garland v. State, 283 Ga. 201 (ineffective‑assistance claims must be raised at earliest practicable moment)
- White v. Kelso, 261 Ga. 32 (appellate consideration problematic when trial counsel raises his own ineffectiveness)