King v. the State
338 Ga. App. 783
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- At ~8:00 a.m., officer found Jeffrey King beside his hood-up Jeep; King appeared unsteady, slurred, smelled of alcohol, and admitted having a drink earlier. An unopened 24-oz beer was found in the vehicle.
- Officer limited field sobriety testing due to King’s claimed back injury and monocular vision; King could not recite the alphabet segment requested; officer arrested him as not safe to drive.
- While the officer read the implied consent warning, King volunteered that he was familiar with it because he had a prior DUI; he initially consented to a breath test but was taken to a hospital for back pain and later gave blood showing BAC .307.
- Pretrial, State filed a notice to introduce King’s 2011 guilty plea to a 2010 DUI but later withdrew that intent; King moved orally to redact the video to exclude his statement about a prior DUI; the trial court denied the motion.
- King was convicted of DUI (less safe) and acquitted of DUI per se; he moved for a new trial arguing the court failed to conduct a Rule 404(b)/403 analysis before admitting the prior-DUI statement; the trial court later applied the 404(b) test on the record and denied relief.
- On appeal King argued only that the probative value of the prior-DUI statement was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of defendant’s volunteered statement that he had a prior DUI under Rule 404(b)/403 | King: statement’s probative value was slight and substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; should have been redacted | State: statement was relevant (showed familiarity with implied consent, intent to drive while intoxicated) and probative; not unduly prejudicial | Court: admissible — probative value (intent, rebutting defense that he became intoxicated after stopping, explaining conduct) outweighed ordinary prejudice; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 297 Ga. 156 (evidence of prior DUI relevant to intent to drive while intoxicated)
- Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (discussion of relevance vs. probative value and Rule 403 principles)
- Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (Rule 404(b) framework for other-acts evidence)
- Hood v. State, 299 Ga. 95 (Rule 403 exclusion is extraordinary and sparingly used)
- United States v. King, 713 F.2d 627 (11th Cir. 1983) (relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; exclusion under Rule 403 requires unfair prejudice substantially outweighing probative value)