Mark Dermen v. State, A25A1996

Mark Dermen was charged with DUI (drugs, less safe) and driving with an expired/no license plate.
At trial, evidence of Dermen’s refusal to submit to a blood test was admitted, with a jury instruction permitting an inference of drug presence.
Dermen’s motion to suppress the refusal evidence, on constitutional grounds, was denied by the trial court, which ruled Supreme Court of Georgia has not yet addressed this issue in the blood test context.
Following conviction, Dermen challenged the admissibility of his refusal and the related jury instruction in a motion for new trial, which was also denied.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals determined the case involves unresolved constitutional questions regarding evidentiary use of blood test refusal and transferred the appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia for resolution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of refusal to take blood test in DUI case	Refusal evidence violates constitution	Admissible, not yet ruled unconstitutional	Supreme Court of Georgia must decide unresolved constitutional issue
Jury inference from refusal	Jury should not infer guilt from refusal	Jury can infer refusal indicates drugs	Supreme Court of Georgia must resolve if this is permissible

Zarate-Martinez v. Echemendia, 299 Ga. 301 (Ga. 2016) (explains Supreme Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction on constitutional issues)
State v. Davis, 303 Ga. 684 (Ga. 2018) (clarifies scope of appellate jurisdiction on constitutional grounds)
Elliott v. State, 305 Ga. 179 (Ga. 2019) (held statutes unconstitutional for admitting breath test refusal at trial)
State v. Randall, 315 Ga. 198 (Ga. 2022) (notes unresolved constitutional questions regarding blood test refusal evidence)
State v. Dias, 321 Ga. 261 (Ga. 2025) (found that the admissibility of blood test refusal evidence remains an open legal question)
Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Med. Clinic, 267 Ga. 177 (Ga. 1996) (Supreme Court holds ultimate responsibility for appellate jurisdiction)