Szopinski v. the State, 342 Ga. App. 647

Early-morning traffic stop after officer observed a Cadillac weaving, crossing the fog line, and reversing from a red light; driver identified as Nancy Szopinski.
Officer smelled alcohol, observed bloodshot/watery eyes, and Szopinski admitted to drinking a couple of beers; she performed poorly on field sobriety tests and refused a preliminary breath test.
Officer read the Georgia Implied Consent Warning and Szopinski initially agreed to a state-administered breath test, but the officer testified she later refused the test at the jail.
At trial Szopinski said she drank two beers hours earlier, claimed weaving was caused by something in her eye and by reading an old text, and asserted the police later denied her the chance to take the state test.
The jury convicted Szopinski of DUI (less safe driver) and failure to maintain lane; she appealed the denial of her motion for new trial, challenging admission of her refusal to take the state-administered test and prosecutor comments about her failure to "come forward."

Issue	Szopinski's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of refusal to take state-administered chemical test	Refusal was exercised under Fourth Amendment protections and cannot be used as evidence of guilt	Refusal is governed by statutory implied-consent scheme and OCGA authorizes admission of refusal	Court held refusal admissible; right to refuse is statutory (not constitutional) and statute permits admission of refusal as evidence
Prosecutor comment about failure to come forward with evidence	Closing argument improperly commented on Szopinski’s failure to produce evidence, violating prohibition on commenting on defendant’s silence	Prosecutor argued inconsistencies between Szopinski’s trial testimony and her prior statements, suggesting fabrication rather than commenting on silence	Court held no error: comment targeted inconsistency and timing of the story (permitted inference), not a forbidden comment on silence

Klink v. State, 272 Ga. 605 (statutory right to refuse state testing; not a constitutional right)
Williams v. State, 296 Ga. 817 (Supreme Court discussion of voluntariness of consent and limits on implied-consent reasoning)
Bradford v. State, 299 Ga. 880 (permitted impeachment by inconsistent pretrial statements)
Sanders v. State, 290 Ga. 637 (prohibition on commenting on defendant’s silence/failure to come forward)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to the jury’s verdict)