Rolland v. State
321 Ga. App. 661
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Rolland was convicted by a jury of DUI less safe, DUI per se, and failure to maintain a lane.
- At about 1:00 a.m., an Athens-Clarke County officer observed Rolland driving 62 mph in a 45 mph zone and failing to maintain his lane twice.
- Rolland admitted drinking two beers and a shot of vodka after the officer detected alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and odor of alcohol.
- Rolland submitted to field sobriety tests; he had six HGN clues, eight-walk-and-turn clues, and four-one-leg stand clues, and tested positive on a breath device.
- The officer transported Rolland to a jail and conducted two breath tests on the Intoxilyzer 5000 showing 0.087 and 0.086 BAC.
- Two certificates of inspection for the Intoxilyzer 5000 were admitted, indicating prior inspections by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court impermissibly commented on the evidence | Rolland argues OCGA § 17-8-57 violation due to comments on Intoxilyzer history. | Rolland contends trial court comments exceeded proper redirecting function. | No OCGA § 17-8-57 violation; remarks were for guiding questioning and did not improperly express an opinion. |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying funds for an expert | Rolland contends an expert was needed to challenge Intoxilyzer accuracy for an ineffective-assistance claim. | State asserts no abuse since no identified expert and no prejudice shown. | No abuse; failure to name an expert and lack of prejudice since testimony would be cumulative. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective | Rolland claims counsel failed to obtain funds or an expert to challenge Intoxilyzer results, and failed to object to certain HGN testimony. | State contends no prejudice or deficient performance established. | No prejudice; expert would have been cumulative and objections to HGN testimony did not show a reasonable probability of different outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sauerwein v. State, 280 Ga. 438 (Ga. 2006) (new trial required if court comments on evidence)
- State v. Gardner, 286 Ga. 633 (Ga. 2010) (OCGA 17-8-57 limitations on trial court remarks)
- Butler v. State, 290 Ga. 412 (Ga. 2012) (court may guide defense to fair trial)
- Creed v. State, 255 Ga. App. 425 (Ga. App. 2002) (trial court may explain evidentiary rulings without expressing opinion)
- Adams v. State, 282 Ga. App. 819 (Ga. App. 2006) (trial court authority to control conduct to ensure fair trial)
- Ellis v. State, 292 Ga. 276 (Ga. 2013) (trial court remarks about evidence not inherently opinionated)
- Brown v. State, 293 Ga. App. 633 (Ga. App. 2008) (rebuttal evidence and prejudice standard in ineffective assistance)
- Towry v. State, 304 Ga. App. 139 (Ga. App. 2010) (prejudice requirement in post-trial expert funding decisions)
- Wesley v. State, 286 Ga. 355 (Ga. 2010) (cumulative evidence and ineffective assistance considerations)
- Gibbs v. State, 316 Ga. App. 431 (Ga. App. 2012) (cumulative testimony non-prejudicial for effectiveness claim)