State v. Holland, 308 Ga. 412

On Sept. 4, 2016, Gary Holland struck and killed cyclist Susan Kilner with his truck and then left the scene; he was later indicted in Glynn County on multiple counts including first‑degree vehicular homicide predicated on hit‑and‑run under OCGA § 40‑6‑393(b).
OCGA § 40‑6‑393(b) makes it first‑degree vehicular homicide when a driver causes a death (without malice) and leaves the scene in violation of the hit‑and‑run statute (OCGA § 40‑6‑270); the hit‑and‑run statute requires drivers to stop, provide ID, and summon aid when an accident causes death or serious injury.
In 2008 the General Assembly amended OCGA § 40‑6‑393 to remove any requirement that the act of leaving the scene itself be a contributing cause of the victim’s death.
Holland moved to bar prosecution, arguing OCGA § 40‑6‑393(b) violates substantive due process and equal protection because it allows conviction even when leaving the scene did not contribute to the death.
The trial court granted Holland’s motion, declaring the statute unconstitutional on due process and equal protection grounds; the State appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.
The Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding § 40‑6‑393(b) survives rational‑basis review and is constitutional as applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 40‑6‑393(b) violates substantive due process by omitting a causation element (i.e., that leaving the scene contributed to death)	Holland: Deleting the causation element is irrational; defendants can be convicted though leaving did not cause death.	State: Legislature rationally chose to deter leaving and encourage aid; punishing hit‑and‑run that follows a fatal accident is reasonably related to public safety even if leaving didn’t cause death.	Court: Statute constitutional under rational‑basis; legitimate purpose (public safety/encouraging aid) and reasonably related means.
Whether § 40‑6‑393(b) violates equal protection by treating hit‑and‑run homicide differently than other first‑degree vehicular homicides	Holland: Defendants similarly situated are treated differently without rational basis.	State: Different subsections criminalize different conduct; Legislature may rationally distinguish hit‑and‑run to incentivize staying and aiding victims.	Court: Equal protection challenge fails under rational‑basis; distinctions are rational and not arbitrary.

Pierce v. State, 302 Ga. 389 (2017) (sets out rational‑basis test for criminal statutes)
Rhodes v. State, 283 Ga. 361 (2008) (constitutional questions reviewed de novo)
Castillo‑Solis v. State, 292 Ga. 755 (2013) (legitimate legislative interest in public safety on roads)
Klaub v. Battle, 286 Ga. 156 (2009) (discusses causation element under prior statute)
Rainer v. State, 286 Ga. 675 (2010) (imperfection in legislative fit does not defeat rational basis)
Jones v. State, 307 Ga. 505 (2019) (similar‑situation analysis in equal protection challenges)
State v. Nankervis, 295 Ga. 406 (2014) (treatment of similarly situated defendants and statutory distinctions)