Warbington v. State, 316 Ga. App. 614

Warbington appeals a conviction and a pretrial ruling that his prior felony conviction could be used for impeachment if he testified.
Trial court allowed two older convictions (2009 drug and 2000 aggravated assault) to fall within permissible impeachment under OCGA § 24-9-84.1, but Warbington did not testify and those convictions were not introduced at trial.
Warbington challenges only the older conviction ruling under OCGA § 24-9-84.1(b), claiming improper balancing of probative value and prejudice.
Georgia precedent requires a defendant to testify to obtain review of an in limine ruling on impeachment evidence under Luce, as adopted through Linares and related lines of authority.
The issue presents whether warbington’s non-testimony precludes meaningful appellate review of the pretrial ruling; the court applies Luce/Linares, concluding review is not possible without testimony.
Court affirms the judgment, holding the record is not amenable to meaningful review because Warbington did not testify.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant must testify to review a pretrial impeachment ruling	Warbington argues review is possible regardless of testimony	State relies on Luce/Linares requiring testimony for review	Record not amenable to review; affirmed
Whether Luce/Linares governs preservation for OCGA 24-9-84.1(b) rulings in Georgia	Warbington contends Luce/Linares apply to permit review	State argues Luce/Linares control; without testimony no review	Luce/Linares control; no meaningful review due to non-testimony

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984) (guides preservation of impeachment rulings; need testimony to review in limine rulings)
Linares v. State, 266 Ga. 812 (1996) (Georgia adopts Luce approach for in limine rulings; review depends on testimony)
Clay v. State, 290 Ga. 822 (2012) (balancing under OCGA 24-9-84.1(b) and review considerations)