Derrico v. State
306 Ga. 634
Ga.2019Background
- On Aug. 29, 2014, Mark Derrico and Felix Ambrosetti were involved in a road‑rage encounter on GA-400; an independent witness (Timothy Inglis) called 911 and testified about the events.
- Inglis testified Ambrosetti merged left, remained in lane, Derrico attempted to pass on the right, then re-entered left and struck Ambrosetti’s passenger side; Derrico then slowed, moved behind Ambrosetti, used the emergency lane, and struck Ambrosetti’s driver side.
- Deputy Day cited Derrico at the scene for aggressive driving (OCGA § 40-6-397), reckless conduct (OCGA § 16-5-60), and failure to signal lane change (OCGA § 40-6-123).
- At trial Derrico testified he was innocent and that Ambrosetti was the aggressor; jury convicted Derrico of the charged offenses.
- Derrico moved for directed verdict/new trial and raised vagueness and selective‑prosecution challenges, and sought admission of more of Ambrosetti’s driving history; the trial court denied relief and the convictions were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Derrico) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggressive driving, reckless conduct, failure to signal | Derrico argued he was innocent and Ambrosetti was aggressor, so evidence insufficient | Jury could credit witness and officer testimony showing Derrico struck Ambrosetti twice and drove into emergency lane | Affirmed — evidence sufficient to support convictions |
| Vagueness of OCGA § 40-6-397 (aggressive driving) | Statute’s open‑ended list and indictment lacking reference to listed statutes make it vague; selective prosecution claim | Statute gives fair warning that intentionally using vehicle to intimidate (e.g., striking another car) is prohibited; no showing of discriminatory prosecution | Affirmed — statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied; selective‑prosecution claim failed |
| Vagueness of OCGA § 16-5-60 (reckless conduct) | Statute vague as applied; Derrico acted in self‑defense to Ambrosetti’s road rage | Using a vehicle to strike another at highway speeds poses obvious risk; ordinary person would have fair notice | Affirmed — statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied |
| Exclusion/limitation of Ambrosetti’s driving history | Derrico argued omitted history was relevant to impeach Ambrosetti’s credibility and show bias | Trial court admitted portions and limited irrelevant portions; Derrico cross‑examined about two admitted accidents; independent witness corroborated State’s version | Any error in limiting evidence was harmless; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Major v. State, 301 Ga. 147 (void for vagueness framework and fair‑warning requirement)
- Baker v. State, 280 Ga. 822 (statutory vagueness assessed under case facts when not involving First Amendment)
- State v. Cohen, 302 Ga. 616 (statutory construction to uphold constitutionality when possible)
- Thompson v. State, 302 Ga. 533 (precedent on sufficiency and motions for new trial)
- Slaton v. State, 296 Ga. 122 (evidence sufficiency principles)
- Wallace v. State, 299 Ga. 672 (standard for showing selective prosecution)
- Horowitz v. State, 243 Ga. 441 (vagueness upheld where conduct gave fair notice—reckless conduct example)
- Adkins v. State, 301 Ga. 153 (harmless‑error standard for nonconstitutional errors)