Hill v. StateHill v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Andrews
Rоbert Lee Hill was found guilty by a jury of operating a motor vehicle after receiving notice that his licensе was revoked as a habitual violator, driving a. motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and рossession of less than one ounce of marijuana. Hill appeals from the judgment entered on the convictions and enumerates as error that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictiоns; (2) documentary evidence was erroneously admitted without proper authentication and (3) the trial сourt erred by refusing to declare a mistrial because his character was improperly placеd into issue. We affirm the habitual violator and DUI convictions and reverse the conviction for possessiоn of marijuana.
1. The evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty on the charge of driving while under thе influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe to drive pursuant to
An Oconee County deрuty sheriff testified for the State that he observed a car erratically passing other vehicles and changing lanes on Highway 78 at a high rate of speed. He stopped the car, approached, and asked the driver for his license. Hill, who was driving the car, could not produce a license and gave the deputy a false name and date of birth. Observing that Hill’s eyes were red and his speech was slurred, the deputy asked Hill to step out of the car, and, upon doing so, Hill almost fell down and had to be held up by the deputy. Based on clear indications; that Hill was under the influence of alcohol and on his inability to successfully complete two field sobriety tests at the scene, the deputy arrested Hill and charged him with driving under the influence of alcоhol. The deputy testified that Hill appeared to be under the influence of alcohol to the extеnt that he was incapable of safely driving the car. This was ample evidence to allow a rationаl trier of fact to. conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Hill was guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); Lewis v. *494 State, 214 Ga. App. 830 (449 SE2d 535) (1994).
As to the habitual violator charge, the State introduced certified copies of records of the Department of Public Safety showing that, at the time Hill was driving the car, he had been declared a habitual violator, had his license revoked, and had received notice that his license was revoked bеcause of his status as a habitual violator.
2. Hill contends his motion for a mistrial should have been granted because his character was improperly placed into issue. While cross-examining the arresting dеputy, defense counsel asked a series of leading questions implying that, even though Hill gave the deputy a fаlse name, the deputy knew Hill’s real name when he wrote tickets in the false name,’ then later wrote a rеport using Hill’s real name. In reply, the deputy explained that he did not know Hill’s real name when Hill gave the falsе name, but he later discovered Hill’s real name when he saw another ticket Hill had which showed he had beеn recently arrested for the same offense.
The deputy’s explanation as to when and how he discоvered Hill’s true name was responsive to questions posed by defense counsel. Since the deputy’s statement about a previous offense came in responsive testimony elicited by defense counsel, any error was induced and Hill cannot complain. Adside v. State, 216 Ga. App. 129, 131 (453 SE2d 139) (1995). Moreover, the trial court’s precautionary instructiоn to the jury was sufficient to cure any error. Id. The trial court properly denied Hill’s motion for a mistrial.
3. The Statе also produced evidence that, in a search of Hill incident to the arrest, what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette was found on his person. The cigarette was tested at the State Crime Lab. In lieu of testimony from the Crime Lab employee who did the testing, the State introduced a sworn certificate from the employee pursuant to
Subsequent to Hill’s trial, the Georgia Supreme Court found that
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Pope, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.