Holowiak v. State
308 Ga. App. 887
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Holowiak was convicted of DUI per se after a January 2010 retrial following a prior mistrial.
- Evidence arose from an early-morning Cherokee County roadblock with odor of alcohol, watery eyes, flushed face, and admission of drinking.
- Holowiak submitted to a preliminary breath test; field sobriety tests indicated impairment; Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test read 0.125.
- Holowiak challenged discovery of the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code, the breath machine, and the mobile command unit.
- The State argued the evidence included less safe-driver and impairment testimony and field sobriety results relevant to the DUI charge.
- Trial court charged the jury on DUI per se, and Holowiak requested additional instructions which were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of less safe driver and field tests | Holowiak argues not relevant and prejudicial to DUI per se. | State contends tests and impairment evidence are probative of sobriety and arrest basis. | Admissible; evidence relevant to DUI per se and countering reliability attacks. |
| Discovery of out-of-state source code and related materials | Holowiak seeks source code and mobile unit materials to test accuracy. | State asserts lack of necessity and overbreadth; governing standards apply. | No abuse; only test result printout from intoxilyzer is discoverable; out-of-state subpoena denied. |
| Admission of testimony that Holowiak declined an independent test | Declining independent test should be excluded as self-incrimination violation. | Testimony is relevant to rebut reliability challenges and sobriety assessment. | Admissible; relevant to defense and consistency with breath test results. |
| Jury instructions on reliability of testing devices and preexisting conditions | Request that jury be charged on device malfunctions and preexisting conditions. | General charge already covers fallibility and evidentiary evaluation. | No error; substantial coverage by the court's general instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 275 Ga.App. 714 (Ga. App. 2005) (evidence must be probative and not unduly prejudicial)
- State v. Adams, 270 Ga.App. 878 (Ga. App. 2004) (relevance and admissibility of DUI-related evidence)
- Kirkland v. State, 253 Ga.App. 414 (Ga. App. 2002) (field sobriety tests admissible to reflect sobriety level)
- Wrigley v. State, 248 Ga.App. 387 (Ga. App. 2001) (officer's opinion testimony on sobriety admissible)
- Stetz v. State, 301 Ga.App. 458 (Ga. App. 2009) (discovery scope for intoxilyzer data; printout suffices)
- Davenport v. State, 303 Ga.App. 401 (Ga. App. 2010) (out-of-state witness subpoena limits and discretion)
- Chesser v. State, 168 Ga.App. 195 (Ga. App. 1983) (necessity of out-of-state witness for subpoena)
- Eliopulos v. State, 203 Ga.App. 262 (Ga. App. 1992) (discretion in denying discovery where materiality is speculative)
- Hills v. State, 291 Ga.App. 873 (Ga. App. 2008) (scope of evidentiary rulings and admissibility)