The State v. Walsh
339 Ga. App. 894
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- In June 2015 Officer Snively found James Walsh asleep in a running car stopped in the roadway; he suspected DUI and administered a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test after medical clearance.
- Snively usually asks subjects to remove eyeglasses but did not ask Walsh to remove his glasses for this HGN; he admitted that doing so would have been better practice and a deviation from training.
- Officer Snively testified he observed all six validated HGN clues, that he saw no reflective interference from the glasses, and that the glasses did not impair his ability to interpret the test.
- Walsh moved to suppress the HGN results arguing the failure to remove glasses rendered the test inadmissible; the trial court excluded the HGN results, finding the State failed to show proper administration by a preponderance.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo because the factual testimony about how the test was conducted was undisputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walsh) | Defendant's Argument (State/Officer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of HGN results when officer failed to ask subject to remove eyeglasses | Glasses on during HGN made administration improper and results inadmissible | Deviation (not removing glasses) was at most a procedural irregularity going to weight, not admissibility; officer saw no interference and observed six clues | Reversed trial court: glasses issue goes to weight, not admissibility; HGN results admissible |
| Standard for reviewing suppression decision when facts undisputed | N/A (Walsh contested validity but not factual administration) | Court: de novo review of law applied to undisputed facts | De novo review applied |
| Requirement to show HGN validity and proper administration | HGN invalidated here by deviation from guidelines (glasses) | Must show general validity of HGN and substantial compliance with procedures; officer may testify as fact and expert witness | Two-part test confirmed; here substantial compliance shown by officer testimony |
| Sufficiency of State’s notice of appeal/certification under OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(5) | State’s certification invalid because included in body of notice of appeal; appeal should be dismissed | Filing certification in same document as notice of appeal is permitted; appellate court decides sufficiency | Notice of appeal effective; appellate court has jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319 (review standard for suppression rulings) (court reviews factual findings for clear error and legal application de novo when facts undisputed)
- Tousley v. State, 271 Ga. App. 874 (HGN two-part admissibility test: general scientific validity and substantial compliance with procedures)
- Hawkins v. State, 223 Ga. App. 34 (HGN should be administered under law enforcement guidelines)
- Parker v. State, 307 Ga. App. 64 (errors in HGN administration that are not fundamental go to weight, not admissibility)
- Hughes v. Sikes, 273 Ga. 804 (appellate court determines sufficiency of filings invoking its jurisdiction)