Monroe v. the State
340 Ga. App. 373
Ga. Ct. App.2017Background
- At ~3:00 a.m. on May 9, 2013, Gwinnett County officers stopped Thomas Roy Monroe for speeding (65–70 mph in a 45 zone) and twice drifting over the lane line.
- Officers detected the odor of alcohol; one officer observed six of six clues on a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test and slurred speech; Monroe refused breath testing and declined some field sobriety tests citing a prior car accident.
- After arrest, officers found in Monroe’s car a glass with ice and a dark liquid that smelled like alcohol (the container was not preserved).
- Monroe was tried and convicted by a jury of DUI (less-safe driver), speeding, failure to maintain lane, and possession of an open container.
- On appeal Monroe challenged: sufficiency of the evidence; admission of a prior DUI conviction; admission of demonstrative HGN videos; and admission of testimony about the unpreserved open container.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Monroe) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DUI and traffic offenses | Evidence was insufficient to prove impairment and offenses | Driving behavior, odor, HGN results, slurred speech, refusal to take breath test, and open container supported convictions | Affirmed — evidence sufficient when viewed in favor of verdict (Jackson standard) |
| Admission of prior DUI conviction | Prior conviction was irrelevant, vague statute, Fifth Amendment and double jeopardy concerns | Admissible under OCGA § 24-4-417(a)(1) to prove knowledge and under OCGA § 24-4-404(b) to show intent; statute favors admission | Affirmed — prior DUI admissible to show knowledge/intent; no preserved constitutional challenge or reversible error |
| Admissibility of demonstrative HGN videos | Videos could mislead or be unfairly prejudicial | Videos demonstratively similar and helpful; proper foundation laid; trial court has broad discretion | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion admitting demonstrative HGN clips |
| Testimony about unpreserved open container | Failure to preserve the container violated due process; evidence should be excluded | No showing of bad faith or that the container was constitutionally material | Affirmed — no demonstration of bad faith or constitutional materiality; testimony admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. State, 284 Ga. App. 811 (2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (evidence must permit any rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Frost, 297 Ga. 296 (2015) (OCGA § 24-4-417 contains a presumption favoring admission of prior DUI evidence)
- State v. Jones, 297 Ga. 156 (2015) (other-act evidence admissible under Rule 404(b) when it shows same state of mind/intent)
- Smith v. State, 299 Ga. 424 (2016) (standards and discretion for admitting demonstrative evidence)
- State v. Miller, 287 Ga. 748 (2010) (test for due-process violation from destruction/nonpreservation of potentially exculpatory evidence)
- Whitman v. State, 316 Ga. App. 655 (2012) (defendant’s choice to testify is not infringed by admission of adverse evidence)