 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Worthy v. State12/10/2001
Following a bench trial, the trial court found James Worthy guilty of driving with a suspended license. Worthy appeals, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted evidence. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
1. Worthy argues that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence a computerized printout of his driving record. Under OCGA § 24-3-17, a driving record is admissible "if the State (a) shows it is a certified copy of a Department of Public Safety record or (b) proves the driving record was obtained from a computer terminal lawfully connected to the Georgia Crime Information Computer."
The State did not produce a certified copy of Worthy's driving record at trial. Instead, it called Phyllis Holloway, the solicitor's office investigator who obtained the record, as a witness. According to Holloway, she retrieved Worthy's record through a computer connected to the Georgia Crime Information Computer ("GCIC"), which she was specifically trained, certified, and authorized to access. She then printed the information from her computer. Holloway identified the computerized printout at trial, and the trial court admitted it into evidence over Worthy's foundational objection.
On appeal, Worthy contends the State failed to meet the foundational requirements of OCGA § 24-3-17 (b) because "there was no testimony that the computer [used by Holloway] was `lawfully' connected to the [GCIC]." As an initial matter, Worthy failed to preserve this objection below. "Because `lack of foundation' has no single defined meaning, an objection of `lack of foundation' generally is of little or no use to a trial judge." To properly make and preserve this objection, therefore, the party "must specify the foundational element he contends is lacking." At trial, Worthy argued that the State had not laid "a proper legal foundation" for admission of his driving history. He never specified, however, that the missing foundational element was evidence of a "lawful" connection to the GCIC.
Furthermore, even if Worthy's objection was adequate, we find no error in the driving record's admission. The State offered evidence that Holloway, an investigator with the solicitor's office, was trained and authorized to access the driving record and that she retrieved the information through a computer connected to the GCIC. Under these circumstances, there is, at the very least, circumstantial evidence that the connection was lawful. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the record. And although Worthy challenged Holloway's training and credibility, the trial court was charged with resolving credibility issues and clearly decided Worthy's challenge against him.
The State presented sufficient evidence that Holloway's connection to the GCIC was "lawful," as required by OCGA § 24-3-17 (b). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting Worthy's driving record into evidence.
2. Worthy also argues that the trial court improperly permitted Holloway to testify about the contents of his driving record. He first claims that this testimony should have been excluded because the State did not lay the foundation necessary to admit the driving record into evidence. In Division 1, however, we rejected that argument. He further contends that the trial court should not have allowed Holloway to interpret the driving record because the State "failed to lay a foundation that was qualified" to do so.
Worthy raised two foundational objections to Holloway's testimony about his driving record. He challenged her qualifications to access the GCIC and argued that the State did not
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|