 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Adams12/13/2004
did not unequivocally refuse to submit to breath testing. Rather, he indicated that he was confused and failed to consent. However, such failure is tantamount to a refusal. Moreover, after Adams failed to answer, Miller said that he would take him to the station and ask him again. Thus, Adams had reason to believe that Miller would actually ask him again if he was willing to take the test rather than simply putting him in front of the machine and telling him to blow. Under these circumstances, we cannot construe Adams' compliance as consent. It follows that the trial court did not err in granting Adams' motion to suppress on this basis.
Case Number A04A2102
2. While in route to the jail, Adams told Miller that he was having marital problems, had joined Alcoholics Anonymous, and had just attended his second meeting. According to Miller, he did not ask Adams any questions to elicit this information. Adams moved to suppress the statements, asserting that they are irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The trial court found the statements admissible, which frames the issue in this appeal.
The decision to admit or exclude evidence lies within the discretion of the trial judge, and this Court will not interfere with such discretion absent abuse. "Unless the potential for prejudice substantially outweighs probative value, Georgia law favors the admission of relevant evidence, no matter how slight its probative value." "Evidence which is relevant to an issue in a case is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that it incidentally puts the defendant's character in issue." Moreover, the facts and circumstances surrounding an arrest are generally admissible.
Here, Adams' statement that he had joined Alcoholics Anonymous arguably is relevant to his use of alcohol. Similarly, his statement that he was experiencing marital problems could provide a motive for imbibing. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence.
3. On appeal, Adams also challenges the trial court's decision to give jury instructions regarding his refusal to submit to breath testing. As the trial has not yet taken place, however, no error has occurred. The purpose of this Court is to correct actual error. We do not provide advisory opinions as to potential error. There are myriad reasons why the jury instruction issue may never require resolution, including the possibility either that the trial court may forgo such instruction or that Adams may be acquitted. Accordingly, we decline to address the alleged error at this juncture.
Judgment affirmed. Eldridge and Adams, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|