Lauderback v. State
320 Ga. App. 649
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Lauderback was convicted by a jury of one count of reckless driving in Henry County, Georgia.
- The offense arose from September 5, 2011, when Lauderback drove a Toyota truck on Upchurch Road with his three sons as passengers.
- A loose dog ran into yards and the road; motorists stopped to help catch it, blocking both lanes except for a gap between two parked vehicles.
- Witnesses testified Lauderback weaved between the parked vehicles, did not stop, and allegedly frightened the dog; Moore was struck with the dog running away after Lauderback allegedly gestured at her.
- Lauderback allegedly did not stop after hitting the dog; a motorist pursued and provided the tag number to police; one witness said Lauderback did not brake or stop at a hill's stop sign.
- Lauderback testified that he stopped when he reached parked cars and passed cautiously, and denied recklessness; his 17-year-old son supported his version.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Lauderback argues the State failed to prove recklessness beyond reasonable doubt. | Lauderback contends the evidence supports his version and negates recklessness. | Sufficient evidence supported the guilty verdict. |
| Demurrer to accusation timely | Accusation lacked particular facts and date, rendering it defective; not properly challenged. | Accusation was defective for lack of specificity; timely special demurrer required. | Waived by failure to timely file; no reversible error. |
| Accident defense instruction | Court should have instructed on accident as sole defense. | Accident does not apply when driving recklessly; trial court refused properly. | No error; accident instruction properly refused. |
| Bare suspicion and other charges | Court should have given bare suspicion and roadway conduct charges. | Requested charges were unwarranted; evidence showed more than mere suspicion. | Court did not err; denial proper. |
| Charge distinguishing civil/criminal negligence and preservation | Recharge on criminal negligence created a lower burden of proof; inadequately defined terms. | Recharge was correct and not plainly erroneous; preserved objections were lacking. | No plain error; recharge properly instructed; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maloney v. State, 317 Ga. App. 460 (2012) (jury may choose which version to believe)
- Banks v. State, 230 Ga. App. 881 (1998) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
- Winston v. State, 270 Ga. App. 664 (2004) (preservation of jury instruction errors)
- State v. Wilson, 318 Ga. App. 88 (2012) (special demurrer vs. general demurrer)
- Hood v. State, 307 Ga. App. 439 (2010) (special demurrer must be timely filed; lack of date)
- Stinson v. State, 279 Ga. 177 (2005) (timing of demurrers under OCGA)
- State v. Delaby, 298 Ga. App. 723 (2009) (timely demurrer requirements)
- Walden v. State, 273 Ga. App. 707 (2005) (definition of reckless disregard and jury instruction standards)
- Davis v. State, 301 Ga. App. 484 (2009) (standard for accident defense)
- Blake v. State, 292 Ga. 516 (2013) (plain-error review and fullness of charge)
- Curry v. State, 291 Ga. 446 (2012) (criminal negligence instruction standards)
- Carson v. State, 259 Ga. App. 21 (2002) (general vs. specific jury charge adequacy)
- Sherman v. State, 302 Ga. App. 312 (2010) (bare-suspicion instruction guidance)
- Adams v. State, 293 Ga. App. 377 (2008) (indictment sufficiency test)
- Davis v. State, 301 Ga. App. 484 (2009) (reckless driving definitions)