 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walczak v. State1/9/2003
Following a bench trial on stipulated facts adduced at a hearing on a motion to suppress, the State Court of Fayette County found Robert Walczak guilty of driving under the influence of drugs - less safe driver, and failure to yield the right of way. Walczak appeals his conviction, challenging both the denial of his motion to suppress and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for DUI - less safe driver. Because the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress and the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, we affirm.
1. Walczak first claims error in the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the results of chemical testing.
When reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress, this court's responsibility is to ensure that there was a substantial basis for the decision. The evidence is construed most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment, and the trial court's findings on disputed facts are adopted unless they are clearly erroneous. Further, since the trial court sits as the trier of fact, its findings are analogous to a jury verdict and will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support them.
Viewed in such light, the record shows that Officer V. Roman was dispatched to an "accident with injuries" at the corner of Peachtree Parkway and Fountainhead in Peachtree City, which accident occurred after Walczak made a left turn in front of a vehicle traveling northbound on Peachtree Parkway. When Roman arrived, she observed Walczak's vehicle off the road, with its front end crumpled and the door of the car smashed in. The other driver's car was overturned and was laying on its side with the front windshield smashed in. The driver of the other vehicle was in an ambulance when Roman arrived; the officer was told by emergency medical personal that the driver may have broken bones; he was removed on a stretcher to keep him immobile, with his head strapped down and bracing collars for his neck and back. Walczak, too, was transported to the hospital by ambulance.
Based upon her observations at the scene and what she had been told, Roman believed the collision involved serious injuries so as to require Implied Consent rights be read and chemical testing be done pursuant to OCGA § 40-5-55 (a). She arrived at the hospital and read Implied Consent to Walczak, who refused chemical testing; members of Walczak's family were in the hospital room with him. The officer then left Walczak and located the other driver; she read Implied Consent to him, and he agreed to chemical testing.
Before departing the hospital, Roman returned to Walczak and asked him if he was sure he wished to refuse testing. Walczak then volunteered the information that he had been at a party where people were smoking marijuana, and he was worried that he might have inhaled some, thereby altering any chemical test. The officer gave Walczak Miranda warnings, and, as Roman testified at the motion to suppress, "He [Walczak] told me about the party. He also told me that he had some Ecstasy probably a week prior to this accident."
Because of Walczak's statements, Officer Roman re-read Implied Consent rights for the purpose of a DUI investigation. Roman testified at the motion to suppress that "I told him that based on what he was telling me, I wanted to take blood and urine for the possibility that he was driving under the influence. I explained that to him after I read the Miranda rights." Following the second reading of Implied Consent, Walczak's family urged him to take the test, and he then agreed to chemical testing. Roman testified that, at the time Walczak agreed to chemical testing, he knew he was under suspicion for DU
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|