Walsh v. State, 303 Ga. 276

On June 5, 2015 an officer found James Roy Walsh asleep in a running car in a traffic lane, smelled alcohol, and observed signs of impairment (confusion, watery/bloodshot eyes, lack of reaction to lights).
Officer removed Walsh from the vehicle and administered field sobriety tests, including a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test.
Walsh wore eyeglasses during the HGN test; the officer did not ask him to remove them, though his training required removal and he described this as a “substantial deviation” from training.
The officer testified both that conducting the HGN with glasses was a deviation from training and that, in his opinion, the glasses did not affect his observations of the six validated HGN clues.
The trial court granted Walsh’s motion to suppress the HGN evidence, finding the State failed to prove the test was performed in an acceptable manner; the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State met its foundational burden to admit HGN results by showing the test was substantially performed in an acceptable manner	Walsh: HGN was administered contrary to training (glasses not removed); State failed foundational prong	State: Officer’s testimony and opinion established substantial compliance and that glasses did not affect results	The trial court did not clearly err: State failed to meet its burden because testimony showed a substantial deviation and the court could reject the officer’s assertion of harmlessness
Appropriate standard of appellate review of trial court’s suppression ruling	Walsh: trial court’s factual credibility findings entitled to deference	State/Ct. of Appeals: de novo review appropriate where evidence uncontroverted	Georgia Supreme Court: de novo review inappropriate here because the trial court made credibility and factual findings; those are reviewed for clear error

Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519 (trial court may determine whether a scientific procedure has reached verifiable certainty and may judicially notice widely accepted techniques)
Hawkins v. State, 223 Ga. App. 34 (HGN generally admissible; tests must be properly administered under law-enforcement guidelines)
State v. Tousley, 271 Ga. App. 874 (establishes two-prong foundation for scientific evidence: validity of technique and acceptable performance by tester)
Brown v. State, 293 Ga. 787 (appellate review rules for suppression rulings: deference to trial court on credibility and factual findings)
Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319 (where evidence is truly uncontroverted, application of law to undisputed facts is reviewed de novo)