Kim v. State
337 Ga. App. 155
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In December 2010 Kim was arrested for DUI after failing field sobriety tests and registering a .125 breath-alcohol result; he was convicted of DUI.
- On August 22, 2014 Kim was involved in a DeKalb County single-car accident; officers observed signs of intoxication (all HGN clues, bloodshot/watery eyes, smell of alcohol) and Kim refused the state-administered breath test.
- Before trial the State gave notice it would introduce Kim’s 2010 DUI conviction; Kim objected under OCGA § 24-4-403 (Rule 403) as unduly prejudicial.
- The trial court admitted the prior conviction under OCGA § 24-4-417 for the limited purpose of showing Kim’s knowledge of the consequences of taking or refusing sobriety/chemical tests and gave limiting jury instructions.
- Kim appealed arguing the prior-conviction facts were more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403; the appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior DUI conviction admitted under OCGA § 24-4-417 is nonetheless excludable under OCGA § 24-4-403 because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs probative value | Kim: the 2010 conviction’s facts were highly prejudicial and its probative value (knowledge) did not substantially outweigh unfair prejudice | State: the prior conviction was directly probative of Kim’s knowledge of testing/consequences and was admissible; limiting instruction minimized prejudice | Court: Presuming Rule 403 applies, trial court did not abuse discretion; probative value (knowledge, similarity) outweighed prejudice and evidence was admissible |
| Whether limiting instructions sufficiently protected against unfair prejudice from the prior conviction | Kim: jury could improperly use prior conviction as character evidence despite instruction | State: trial court’s limiting instructions (given at admission, in closing charge) cured potential prejudice | Court: Limiting instructions were appropriate; jurors presumed to follow instructions, reducing risk of unfair prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Frost v. State, 297 Ga. 296 (Ga. 2015) (discusses OCGA § 24-4-417 admissibility in DUI prosecutions)
- Jones v. State, 297 Ga. 156 (Ga. 2015) (requires case‑specific Rule 403 balancing and consideration of similarity)
- Williams v. State, 328 Ga. App. 876 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (describes Rule 403 as extraordinary remedy favoring admissibility)
- Barclay v. State, 306 Ga. App. 766 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (reviews admission of evidence for abuse of discretion)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard referenced in criminal sufficiency/related context)