Moceri v. the State, 338 Ga. App. 329

Moceri was driving a 1995 BMW M3 in the early morning, was followed by police for erratic driving and speeding, failed to stop for blue lights and horn, accelerated away, and crashed into a utility pole; his passenger died from crash injuries.
Moceri’s blood alcohol was .059; hospital nurse reported Moceri boasting about trying to get away. Officer Baird’s dashcam recorded the pursuit and crash.
Defense intended to present a mechanical-malfunction defense based on NHTSA recall 97V131 (throttle/cruise-cable bushing) and expert inspections allegedly showing missing repair clips and a broken throttle-cable part.
Court ordered reciprocal discovery and specifically ordered the defendant to preserve the vehicle for state inspection. Defense disclosures were late and incomplete; counsel misrepresented the car’s ownership/location and failed to secure the vehicle.
The car (or its engine) changed hands, was moved to an unsecured location, the engine was removed and the throttle/cruise cable assembly discarded before the state could inspect it; the state moved to exclude the mechanical-malfunction evidence under OCGA § 17-16-6.
Trial court found bad faith and prejudice from the defense’s (through counsel and associates) conduct and excluded the malfunction evidence; the Court of Appeals affirmed Moceri’s conviction for first-degree vehicular homicide and the exclusion rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conviction	State: Evidence (dashcam, pursuit, crash, death) supports conviction for first-degree vehicular homicide while fleeing police	Moceri: challenges sufficiency (implied)	Court: Jackson standard met; conviction affirmed
Exclusion of mechanical-malfunction evidence under discovery rule OCGA §17-16-6	State: Defense failed to preserve car, acted in bad faith, and prejudice resulted; exclusion warranted	Moceri: Exclusion violated right to present defense; evidence was material and probative	Court: Exclusion proper—defense (through counsel and others) acted in bad faith and state was prejudiced; sanction not an abuse of discretion
Whether defendant is responsible for actions of non‑party witnesses (father, mechanic)	State: Defense conduct (and counsel’s misstatements) tied to destruction; defendant accountable	Moceri: Father/mechanic acted independently (implied)	Court: Even if father/mechanic not agents, counsel’s bad faith conduct imputable to defendant; defendant responsible
Whether trial court erred in excluding a trial expert’s testimony about tire marks suggesting throttle input	Defense: Expert testimony explained tire-mark evidence and pointed to mechanical cause	State: That expert would introduce previously excluded malfunction theory	Court: Exclusion appropriate because it sought to introduce mechanical-malfunction evidence already barred

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (no constitutional bar to exclusion of evidence when defendant or counsel willfully violates discovery rules to gain tactical advantage)
Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) (states may exclude defense evidence for discovery noncompliance without violating defendant’s right to present a defense)
United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975) (no absolute constitutional right to shield work product from discovery requirements of adversary system)
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (rules excluding evidence may be reasonable and constitutional)
Jones v. State, 290 Ga. 576 (2012) (trial court’s remedy for discovery violations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Leger v. State, 291 Ga. 584 (2012) (trial court’s discretion in fashioning remedy under Georgia Discovery Act)
State v. Lucious, 271 Ga. 361 (1999) (reciprocal discovery promotes reliable evidence; exclusion under discovery act justified on bad faith/prejudice)
Theophile v. State, 295 Ga. App. 517 (2009) (appellate review of factual findings about bad faith and prejudice for clear error)