 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dotson v. State11/17/2005
n the wrong side of the road, we discern no error. See Taylor, supra.
2. Prior to trial, Dotson claimed his arrest lacked probable cause and moved to suppress his post-arrest refusal to submit to a breath test. Relying in part on the arresting officer's testimony about what eyewitnesses told him at the scene, the court found probable cause existed and denied Dotson's motion. On appeal, Dotson claims the trial court erred in relying on hearsay testimony at the suppression hearing. We disagree.
"Admission of evidence is a matter which rests largely within the sound discretion of the trial court and an appellate court will not interfere with its rulings absent abuse of that discretion." (Punctuation omitted.) Sailor v. State. At issue in the suppression hearing was the legality of Dotson's arrest, which
depends upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officer had probable cause to make it -- whether at the moment the facts and circumstances within knowledge and of which had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that [Dotson] had committed or was committing an offense. . . . Thus, at a suppression hearing, unlike most trials, the conduct and motives of the officers are at issue, and the court must look to the information available to the officer, including hearsay, to determine if probable cause existed. Accordingly, the trial judge may admit hearsay testimony at the hearing, giving it such weight and credit as he deems proper, although such evidence may not be admissible at trial.
(Footnote omitted.) McDaniel v. State.
Here, the arresting officer explained his basis for finding probable cause in part by testifying as to what he was told by witnesses of the collision, who observed Dotson immediately after the collision and believed he was intoxicated. Dotson did not object to this testimony when it was offered; therefore, the issue is not preserved for appeal. Tuff v. State. Nevertheless, such testimony is admissible at a suppression hearing, because it is offered to explain the officer's conduct and motives instead of to prove the truth of the testimony's contents. See McDaniel, supra. Accordingly, we discern no error.
Judgment affirmed. Miller and Bernes, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|