SECOND DI VI SI ON

A NDREWS, P. J.

M I LLER, P. J. and PETERSON, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

Febr uar y 3, 2016

NOT TO BE OFFI CI A LLY

REPORTED



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 5 A1 92 1 . W A RD v . THE STATE. PE-0 3 4 C

P E T E R S O N , J u d g e.

LaAn t h o n y W ard a p p e a l s fro m t h e tri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f hi s m o t i o n fo r n ew

t ri al fo l l o wi n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n s fo r DUI-p er se, d ri v i n g o n a s u s p en d ed l i cen s e, an

o p en co n t ai n er vi o l at i o n, fai l ure t o st o p at a s t o p s i gn

, an d o b st ru ct i o n o f a l aw

en fo rcem en t o ffi cer. W ard arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y (1 ) ad m i tt i n g ev i d en ce

o f h i s p ri o r DUI co nv i ct i o n

, an d (2 ) t el l in g t h e ju ry th at v en u e h a d b e e n p r o v e n

, in

v i o l at i o n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7

. W e affi rm b ecau se W ard h as fai l ed t o pres erv e h i s

ch al l en g es t o t h e ad m i s s i o n o f h i s p ri o r co n v i ct i on

, an d t h e t ri al co u rt di d no t v i o l at e

OCGA § 1 7-8 -5 7 b ecau s e t h e ch al l en g ed co m m en t s were m ad e d u ri ng a ju ry ch arg e

i n wh i ch i t i n s t ru ct ed t h e ju ry th at t h e St at e was req u i red t o p r o v e v e n u e b ey o n d a

reas on ab l e d o u b t

.Vi ewi n g t h e ev i d en ce i n t h e li g ht m o s t fav o rab le t o t h e v e r d i c t

, t h e t ri al

ev i d en ce s h o ws th at i n Feb ru ary 2 0 1 3

, Dep u ty Gi b b s o f t h e C h e r o k e e Co u n t y

S heri ff’ s Offi ce o bs erv ed a pi ck u p t ru ck ap p ro ach a s t o p s i g n i n Ch ero k ee Co u n t y

an d t u rn wi t h o u t s t o p p i n g

. Dep u t y Gi b bs act i v at ed hi s p at ro l v eh i cl e l i g ht s, an d t h e

t ru ck q u ick l y cam e t o a s t o p beh i n d a h o u s e

. Th e d ri v er ex i t ed th e t ru ck fro m t h e

d ri v er’ s si d e an d b eg an ru n ni n g

. Dep u ty Gi b bs d i d n ot s ee an y o n e e l s e a ro u n d t h e

v eh icl e. Dep u t y Gi b b s cal l ed d i s p at ch

, g av e a p h y s i cal des cri p t i o n o f t h e d ri v er, an d

rep o rt ed t h at t he d ri v er was fl eei n g

. D ep u t y G i b b s t h en ch as ed t h e d ri v er o n fo ot

t h ro u g h an o t h er su b d i v i s i o n

, bu t ret u rn ed t o h i s p at ro l veh i cl e aft er l o s i n g s i g h t o f t h e

d ri v er. By th i s p o i n t, o t h er sh eri ff’ s d ep u ti es h ad arri v ed at t h e scen e o f th e s t o p an d

b eg an s earch i n g t h e t ru ck

. Th e dep u t ies fo un d a cu p co n t ai n i n g an al co h o l i c b ev erag e

an d b u s i n es s card s i n W ard ’ s n am e.

Ab o ut t h e s am e t i m e, a p o l i ce o ffi cer wi t h t he Can t o n Po l i ce Dep art m en t s aw

an i n d i v i d u al

, wh o m at ch ed t h e d es cri p t i on gi v en b y di s p at ch

, ru n acro s s a s t reet an d

crawl u nd er a m o b i le h o m e. Th e p o l i ce o ffi cer ap p ro ach ed t h e m o bi l e h o m e an d d rew

h i s s erv i ce weap o n

. Ot h er o ffi cers arri v ed an d p u l led W ard ou t fro m u n d ern eat h t h e

m o bi l e h o m e. Po l i ce o ffi cers ret u rn ed W ard t o t h e s cen e wh ere t h e p i ck u p t ru ck h ad

2b een l eft

, an d Dep u t y Gi b b s p o s i t i v el y i d en ti fi ed W a r d a s th e d ri v er o f t h e p i ck u p

t ru ck

.

Dep u t y Gi b b s d is co v ered t h at W ard h ad a su s p en d ed l i cen se an d pl aced h i m

u n d er arres t fo r DUI an d d ri vi n g o n a s us p en d ed l icen s e. Dep u t y Gi b b s read W ard t h e

i m p l i ed co n s en t warn i n g, an d W ard refu s ed t o s u b m i t t o a ch em i cal t e s t i n g o f h i s

b l o o d

. Aft er t ra n s po rt i n g W ard t o t h e l o cal jai l

, Dep u t y Gi b b s ap p li ed fo r an d

o b t ai n ed a s earch warran t au t h o ri zi n g a b l o o d d raw fro m W ard

. Th e res u l t s o f t h e

b l o o d t es t rev eal ed t h at W ard h ad a b l o od -al co h ol co n cen t rat io n l ev el o f 0 .0 8 3

.

At t ri al

, aft er t h e St at e res t ed

, W ard cal l ed h is co u s i n

, O c tav i o us O’ Sh awn

Cu l ver, wh o tes ti fi ed t h at h e was d ri v i n g t h e p i ck up t ru ck at th e t i m e of t h e o ffen s e.

Cu l ver fu rt h er t es ti fi ed t h at W ard was si t t i n g in t h e p as s en g er s eat an d h o p p ed o v er

h i m an d ran o u t t h e d ri v er’ s s i d e d o o r w h en Cu l v er ran t he s t o p s i g n

. Cu l v er cl ai m ed

t h at h e ex i t ed t h r o u g h t h e p as s en g er wi n d o w aft er th e d ep u ty b eg an ch as i n g W ard

.

Pu rs uan t t o i ts p ret ri al n ot i ce o f i n t en t t o i n tro d u ce ev i d en ce o f o t h er act s

, t h e

St at e t h en m o v ed t o i nt ro d u ce ev i d en ce o f W ard ’ s p ri o r DUI co n v i ct i o n

, arg ui n g t h at

t h i s ev i den ce was ad m i s s i bl e u nd er OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 1 7 b ecau s e W ard had p l aced t h e

i s su e o f i d en t i t y in di s p u t e. Th e St at e p l an n ed t o i n t ro d u ce th i s ev i d en ce o n reb u t t al

,

3an d t he t ri al co u rt ad m it t ed t h e p r i o r DUI co nv i ct i o n i n t o ev i d en ce ov er W ard ’ s

o b ject i on

.

Befo re t h e St at e’ s reb u t t al cas e, h o wev er, W ard to o k t h e s tan d an d ad m i t t ed

t h at

, i n 2 01 2

, h e p lead ed g u i l t y t o DUI, d ri v i n g o n a s u s pen ded l i cen s e, an d p ro v i d i n g

a fal s e n am e. W ard al s o s t at ed t h at Cu l v er was d ri v i n g t h e p i ck u p

, an d cl ai m ed t h at

h e ju m p ed o u t o f t h e t ru ck b ecau s e h e was co n cern ed ab ou t h is fat her, wh o ap p aren t l y

h ad s uffered a s t ro k e an d wh o W ard was p l an ni n g t o v i s it b efo re t h e t raffi c s t o p

.

Fo l l owi n g W ard ’ s t es t i m o n y

, t h e St at e, i n reb u tt al an d o v er W ard ’ s o b ject i o n,

cal l ed t h e p o li ce o ffi cer i n v o l v ed i n W ard ’ s p ri o r DUI o ffen s e. Th e p o l i ce o ffi cer’ s

t es t i m o ny refl ect ed t h at w h en h e s t o p p ed W ard fo r s p eed i n g i n 20 1 1

, W ard t o l d t h e

o ffi cer t h at h e l o s t h i s i den t i fi cat i o n an d t o l d th e o ffi cer t h at h i s n am e was Oct av i ou s

O’ Sh awn Cu l v er

– t h e n am e o f W ard ’ s co us i n wh o W a r d a l l e g e d was dri v i n g t h e

p i ck u p t ru ck i n t h i s cas e. Th e o ffi cer co n d u ct ed a fi el d s o bri et y t es t o n W ard aft er

o b s erv i n g t h at W ard s m el l ed o f al co h ol

, h ad b l o o d s h o t ey es

, an d was u n st ead y o n h i s

feet

. Du ri n g t h i s t es t, t h e o ffi cer l o cat ed W ard ’ s dri v er’ s l i cen s e p ro t ru d in g fro m t h e

i n s i d e o f W ard ’ s s h o e an d d i s c o v e r ed t h at W ard h ad b een d ri vi n g o n a s us p en d ed

l i cen se.

41

. On ap p eal

, W ard arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y ad m i t t i n g ev i d en ce o f

h i s p ri or DUI co n v i ct i o n un d er OCGA § 2 4-4 -4 1 7 (a)(3 ) b ecau s e t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

o f th e p ri o r co n v i ct i o n we r e n o t s u ffi ci en t l y s im i l ar t o t h e p res en t o ffen s e t o b e

rel ev an t o n t h e i s s u e of i d en t it y

, an d becau s e t h e p reju di ci al effect su b s t an t i al l y

o u t wei gh ed i t s p ro b at i ve v al u e.

To t h e ex t en t W ard ch al l en g es o n l y th e ad m i s s i o n of h i s p ri o r DUI co n v i ct i o n,

as o p p os ed t o t he u n d erl y i n g d et ai l s o f t h e o ffen s e, h e affi rm at i v el y wai v ed h i s

o b ject i on t o t h e ad m i s s i o n o f hi s p ri o r co n v ict i o n b ecau s e h e i nt ro d u ced t h i s ev i d en ce

h i m s el f d u ri n g h is t es t i m o n y

. S ee Li g h t s ey v. S ta t e

, 31 6 Ga. Ap p. 5 7 3, 57 4 (7 3 0 SE2 d

6 7 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (“ W e h av e no ru le i n t h i s s t at e wh i ch p ro hi b i t s co u n s el fro m affi rm at i v el y

wai v i n g o r wi t h d rawi n g an o b ject i o n p rev i o u s l y m ad e.”) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).

M o reo v er, b ecau s e W ard i n tro du ced t h e ch al l en g ed ev i d en ce h i m s el f, an y erro r was

h arm l es s

. S

ee Od o m v. S ta t e

, 24 1 G a

. A p p

. 3 6 1

, 3 6 1 (1 ) (5 2 6 SE2 d 64 6 ) (1 9 9 9 )

(“ [W ] h ere t h e s am e fact h a s b een ad m i t ted i n ev i d en ce b efo re t h e ju ry

, wi t h o ut

o b ject i on

, s u ch ad m i t t ed ev i d en ce ren d ers h arm l es s ad m i s s i o n o f t h e s am e ev i d en ce

o v er ob ject i o n.”) (ci t at i o n s o m it t ed ). Th u s

, h is ch al l en g e t o t h e ad m i s s i o n o f h i s p ri o r

co n vi ct i o n p res en t s n o b as i s fo r rev ers al

.

5To t h e ex t en t W ard ch al l en g ed fu rt h e r i n q u i ry i n t o h i s p ri o r DUI o ffen s e by

o b ject i ng t o t h e St at e’ s reb u tt al wi t n es s

, we w i l l n o t co ns i d er t h i s ch al l en g e

. F i rs t

,

Wa r d h as ab an d o n ed hi s ch al l en g e t o t h e reb u t tal w i t nes s b y fai l i n g t o rai s e t h e

arg u m en t o n ap p eal

. S

ee Br a g g v. S t a te

, 2 26 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8 8

, 5 8 8 (1 ) (4 87 SE2 d 1 3 7 )

(1 9 9 7). Seco n d

, b ecau se W ard i n t ro d u ced t h e ev i d en ce o f h is p ri or DUI co n v i ct i o n,

h e ca n n o t co m

p l ai n o f th e t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n t o al l o w th e St at e to el i ci t fu rt h er

d et ai ls ab o u t t h e p ri o r co n v ict i o n

. S ee Ma yb er r y v. S t a t e

, 3 0 1 G a. Ap p

. 5 0 3

, 5 0 7 (2 )

(6 8 7 SE2 d 8 9 3 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (“ [O] n e can no t co m p lai n o f a res u lt h e p ro cu red o r ai d ed in

cau s i n g , an d i n d u ced erro r i s n o t an ap p ro p ri at e b as i s fo r cl ai m i ng p reju di ce.”).

2

. W ard n ex t arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt v i o l at ed OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 by

c o m m e n t i n g o n t h e ev i d en ce wh en ch arg i n g t h e ju ry on v en u e. Du ri n g t h e ju ry

ch arg e, t h e t ri al co u rt s t at ed :

Th e l aw p ro vi d es t hat cri m i n al act i on s sh al l b e t ri ed i n t h e co u n ty i n

wh i ch t h e cri m e was co m

m i t t ed

. Ven u e, t h at i s

, th e cr i me wa s co mmi t ted

i n Ch er okee Co un t

y

, i s a ju ri sd i ct i o n al fact t h at m u s t b e p ro v ed b y th e

S tat e b ey o nd a reas on ab l e d o u b t as to each cri m e ch arg ed i n th e

accu s at i o n ju s t as an y el em en t o f t h e o ffen ses

. Ven u e m u s t b e p ro v ed b y

d i rect o r ci rcu m s t an t ial ev i d en ce, o r b o th

.

6W ard arg ues t h at t h e l an g u ag e i t al i ci zed ab ov e was an i m p erm i ss i bl e co m

m en t

t h at v en u e h ad b een p ro ven

. A t t h e t i m e o f W ard ’ s tri al

, OCGA § 17 -8 -5 7 p ro v i d ed

t h at “ [i ] t i s erro r fo r an y ju d g e i n an y cri m i nal cas e, d uri n g i t s p ro gres s o r i n h i s

ch arg e t o t h e ju ry

, t o ex p res s or i n t im at e h i s o p in i o n as t o wh at h as o r h as n o t b een

p ro v ed o r as t o t h e g u il t o f th e accu s ed .” 1 Ho w ev er, a t ri al co u rt ’ s ju ry ch arg e v i o l at es

t h e s t at u t e “ o nl y wh en [i t s ] i n s t ru ct i o n

, co n s i dered as a wh ol e, as s um es cert ai n t h i ng s

as fact s an d i n t i m at es t o t h e ju ry wh at t h e [co u rt ] b el i ev es t h e ev i d en ce t o b e.”

S i mmo n s v. S t a t e , 2 9 1 Ga. 7 0 5 , 7 0 8 (5 ) (7 3 3 SE2 d 2 8 0 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (ci tat i on o m i t t ed ).

In t h i s cas e, t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ch al l en g ed s t at em en t d i d n ot refl ect an o p i n i o n as

t o wh at h ad b een p ro v ed ; rat h er, i t was an in s t ru ct i o n of t h e s p eci fi c fact t h at t h e St at e

was req u i red t o p ro v e v en u e b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e do u b t. T h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ch arg e, as

a wh o l e, w as a co rrect s tat em en t o f t h e l aw an d t rack ed t he p at t ern ju ry i ns t ru ct i o n s

.

S ee S t a t e v. Di

xo n

, 28 6 Ga. 7 06

, 7 0 7 (2 ) (6 9 1 SE2 d 2 0 7 ) (2 0 1 0 ); Su gg es t ed Pat t ern

J u ry In s t ru ct i o ns , Vo l . II: Cri m i n al Cas es , § 1 .5 1 .1 0 (2 0 0 7 ). Th u s , t h ere i s n o m eri t

t o W ard ’ s cl ai m t h a t t h e t r i a l co u rt v i o l at ed fo rm er OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 by g i v i n g t h e

s t an d ard p at t ern ju ry i n st ru ct io n o n v en ue. See Ha r g et t v. S t a t e

, 2 85 Ga. 8 2

, 8 7 -8 8 (4 )

(6 7 4 SE2 d 2 6 1 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (n o OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 v i o l at i o n wh ere t ri al co u rt g av e p at t ern

1 Aft er W ard ’ s t ri al , OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 was am en d ed effect i v e J u ly 1 , 2 0 1 5

.

7ju ry ch arg e o n p ri o r co n si s t en t s t at em en t s ). Acco rd in g l y

, w e affi rm t h e d e n i al o f

W ard ’ s m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . An d

r ews , P. J., a n d

Mi l l er

, P. J., co ncu r

.

8