Jоhn Barry Lucas appeals his conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol.
1. Lucas challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. On appeal
*535
the evidence must be viеwed in the light most favorable to support the verdict, and appellant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, an appellate court detеrmines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.
Grant v. State,
The evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict is as follows: At 1:45 a.m., Lucas stopped the van he was driving at a roadblock. As the arresting officer approached the van, he detected a strong smell of alcohol. He observed that Lucas’ eyes were red, glassy and “hazed over,” and thát his speech was slower than normal. The officer suspected that Lucas had been drinking alcohol and asked him to get out of the van. Lucas got out of the vаn after being asked to do so a second time. The officer saw that Lucas was unsteady on his feet. The officer noticed that once Lucas was outside the van, the smell of alcоhol became very strong and definitely originated from Lucas. When asked how much alcohol he had consumed and when he consumed it, Lucas replied “no.” Lucas refused to submit to a field alco-sensor test.
Lucas was given field sobriety exercises. Although he had been instructed to keep his hands at his sides, during the one legged stand exercise Lucas raised his hands to keep his balаnce, swayed and hopped once to keep from falling. Contrary to the instructions given him, Lucas also started the exercise before being told to do so. Lucas began the “heеl to toe step and turn” exercise before being told to do so, then missed eight of the nine heel-to-toe steps, stumbled off line during the exercise, and hesitated before making the turn. The officer, who had received DUI training and who had made about 200 DUI stops, then placed Lucas under arrest for driving under the influence. After being read the implied consent warning, Lucas elected not to submit to a chemical test of his breath. He was transported to a local medical center where, after signing a written implied consent warning, he again refused to take a breath test.
At trial, Lucas did not object to the admission of his refusals to submit to an alco-sensor and a chemical test of his breath. His refusal to submit to an alco-sensor test and to a later chеmical test of his breath is circumstantial evidence of his intoxication. See OCGA §§ 24-1-1 (4); 24-4-9; 40-6-392 (d);
Rawl v. State,
We find that
Davis v. State,
Review of the transcript in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict reveals ample evidence from which any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty of the DUI offense of which convicted.
Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Lucas contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a videotape of a prior 1995 traffic stop of Lucas, which the state offered in addition to other evidence to establish the similarity between it and the current DUI incident. We disagree.
At trial, Lucas objected to the admission of the videotape on the following grounds: (i) the tape is prejudicial and simply evidences an attempt to shоw Lucas in an intoxicated condition; (ii) it has no relevance in the pending case; (iii) it does not show motive; (iv) it does not show bent of mind; it is merely cumulative of the evidence of Lucas’ cоnviction; and (v) it puts Lucas’ character in issue.
The videotape was admissible to show Lucas’ bent of mind or course of conduct.
Fields v. State,
Evidence of a prior DUI offense, regardless of the circumstances surrounding its commission, is logically connected with a рending DUI charge as it is relevant to establish that the perpetrator has the bent of mind to operate a motor vehicle when it is less safe for him to do so. Id.; see also OCGA § 24-2-1. As depictеd by the testimony of the officer and by the videotape, there exist substantial similarities between the prior 1995 event and the DUI alleged in the current indictment. See
Okross v. State,
The evidence was not unduly prejudicial in view of the limiting instructions given by the trial court; moreover, by admitting the similar transaсtion evidence, the trial court implicitly found that the probative value of the videotape was not outweighed by any potential for prejudice. See
Farley v. State,
We disagree with Lucas’ contention that the circumstances surrounding a similar transaction cannot be established by use of a videotape taken at the scene of the incident. We also disagree with his contention that the videotape evidence was rendered cumulative merely because his record оf previous conviction was admitted in evidence. The Supreme Court has recognized that a videotape seems to be a common mechanism for presenting representations of motion to the triers of fact.
Phagan v. State,
Generally, the state cannot establish the circumstances surrounding a similar transaction incident merely by introducing a certified copy of a conviction.
Stephens v. State,
Lucas does not enumerate as error the admission intо evidence of the certified copies of his 1995 DUI conviction or the testimony of the arresting officer regarding the 1995 incident. “[A]n enumeration of error cannot be enlarged by brief to givе appellate viability to an issue not contained in the original enumeration. [Cits.]”
Chezem v. State,
3. Lucas contends that the trial court erred by dеnying his motion for mistrial after the state introduced certain prior DUI convictions other than his prior DUI convictions from 1988 and 1995. Lucas asserts that the admission of this evidence violated the court’s pretrial order. This enumeration is without merit.
Lucas has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in implicitly denying the motion for mistrial. The trial court concluded that Lucas had opеned the door to the admission of evidence to rebut “the defendant’s impression to the jury that he is a man of good character who would not want to hurt anyone or disobey the law by driving under the influence.” Appellant testified that he would know if he had too much to drink to be a safe driver. He also testified that he did not “care to break the law” and did not want “to endanger” anyone. The prohibition against the state’s introduction of character evidence unless and until the defendant places his own character into issue does not preclude use of evidence to disprove facts testified to by the defendant.
Francis v. State,
Judgment affirmed.