KORPONAI v. State
314 Ga. App. 710
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- May 30, 2008, Korponai crashed his truck after failing to negotiate a turn onto private property; owner called 911, Korponai smelled of alcohol, slurred speech, and could not walk unassisted.
- Officers arrived; Korponai refused medical help, alco-sensor test, and later the Intoxilyzer test; he was arrested after refusing the tests.
- Korponai testified he had not been drinking and that terrain caused his difficulty walking; he claimed he never drinks and drives.
- State introduced a 2005 Virginia DUI conviction during cross-examination; trial court charged the jury on implied consent; Korponai objected only to a requested instruction on accident.
- Jury found Korponai guilty of less-safe DUI and failure to maintain lane (merged at sentencing); acquitted open container; appeal challenged implied-consent charge and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Record includes evidence of alcohol odor, inability to walk, refusal of tests, and the police’s reasonable grounds to believe DUI occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the less-safe DUI conviction. | Korponai contends evidence was insufficient. | State argues the record supports all essential elements. | Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction. |
| Whether the implied-consent jury instruction contained an illegal comment on the evidence. | Korponai argues the instruction partially mirrors the implied-consent statute and amounts to improper comment. | State maintains the instruction accurately stated the law and any error was waived by failure to object. | No error; instruction proper and not reversible. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for multiple decisions during trial. | Korponai claims failures include not objecting to alcohol-test admission, not requesting limiting instruction, failing to anticipate prior DUI evidence impact, and not obtaining 911 call evidence. | State argues defense choices were strategic and did not prejudice the outcome; evidence against Korponai was overwhelming. | No reasonable probability of different outcome; no ineffective assistance shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reese v. State, 270 Ga.App. 522 (2004) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency standard: rational trier of fact could find elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- Vergara v. State, 287 Ga. 194 (2010) (failure to object to charge cannot be circumvented by statute; OCGA 17-8-58)
- Cobb v. State, 283 Ga. 388 (2008) (reasonable probability standard for ineffective assistance; door opening to admissibility of prior conviction)
- Thomas v. State, 288 Ga.App. 827 (2007) (impairment evidence supports admissibility and trial strategy context)
- Kitchens v. State, 289 Ga. 242 (2011) (admissibility of refusal to take test; effectiveness context)
- DeYoung v. State, 268 Ga. 780 (1997) (trial strategy in witness decisions not ineffective assistance)