Evans-Glodowski v. the State
335 Ga. App. 484
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On August 5, 2009, a driver (the victim) was killed in a collision on a curve of Lower River Road; Annie Evans-Glodowski was charged with vehicular homicide (first and second degree), reckless driving, and failure to maintain her lane. All convictions were merged into first-degree homicide by vehicle.
- Two eye‑witness passengers observed Evans-Glodowski’s car rapidly pass them moments before the crash, estimated speeds well above the posted limits, and later identified the same vehicle as involved in the collision.
- The State’s accident‑reconstruction expert placed Evans‑Glodowski’s pre‑braking speed between 60–66 mph and located a 91.88‑foot skid mark showing impact in the victim’s lane; Evans‑Glodowski’s expert estimated 54–56 mph and disputed the skid mark identification.
- The collision occurred on a curve with posted advisory/limit signs (35–40 mph at the curve); the State argued her speed and lane departure supported reckless driving and failure to maintain lane convictions.
- The trial court excluded proffered testimony from family passengers that Evans‑Glodowski habitually drove prudently on that curve; the court granted the State’s motion in limine and the defendant appealed the exclusion and sufficiency rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Evans‑Glodowski’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree homicide by vehicle / reckless driving (speed/recklessness) | Witnesses lost sight before crash and could not definitively tie the passer to the crash; speed evidence insufficient | Eyewitness ID, speedometer observations, and reconstruction evidence support excessive speed and reckless driving | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for jury to find reckless driving and first‑degree vehicular homicide beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of evidence for second‑degree homicide by vehicle (failure to maintain lane) | No witness saw her cross into the victim’s lane; scene evidence disputed (skid vs. scuff) | Collision occurred in victim’s lane with no alternative explanation; circumstantial evidence supports lane departure | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove failure to maintain lane |
| Exclusion of habit testimony (motion in limine) | Proffered testimony from long‑time passengers that she habitually drove carefully on the curve would show she acted with due care | Testimony was not habit evidence but improper character evidence and prejudicial | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; driving on a curve is not sufficiently specific/automatic to qualify as "habit" under OCGA §24‑4‑406 |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. State, 332 Ga. App. 794 (explains standard of review on sufficiency of evidence)
- Joiner v. State, 299 Ga. App. 300 (jury credibility determinations; sufficiency review)
- Jones v. State, 313 Ga. App. 590 (single witness testimony can establish fact)
- Hayles v. State, 180 Ga. App. 860 (distinguishing first and second degree vehicular homicide based on underlying offense)
- Fraser v. State, 263 Ga. App. 764 (speed alone can support reckless driving when excessive for conditions)
- Camacho v. State, 292 Ga. App. 120 (circumstantial evidence that defendant was outside lane can support failure‑to‑maintain‑lane conviction)
- Loughan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. discussion distinguishing habit from character evidence)
- Thompson v. Boggs, 33 F.3d 847 (habit evidence requires specific, regular, semi‑automatic responses)