Insights from a Recent Georgia Supreme Court Ruling

In the realm of DUI defense, recent developments in Georgia case law highlight the importance of understanding the intricate legal landscape that can significantly impact the outcome of a case. The Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Garrison v. State, S24G007, August 13, 2024, offers crucial insights into two pivotal issues: the statute of limitations during the COVID-19 pandemic and the admissibility of Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test evidence under Georgia’s updated evidentiary standards

Statute of Limitations: COVID-19 and Judicial Emergency Orders

One of the central issues in Garrison v. State, supra, was whether the State needed to allege in the official charging document, accusation or indictment, and prove that the reason for the tolling or extension of the statute of limitations during the COVID-19 pandemic, due to emergency orders issued by the Chief Justice, applied to the additional the time within which the State could bring charges.

In this case, Misty Garrison was involved in a traffic accident on November 15, 2018, which led to her being charged with multiple misdemeanors, including DUI (less safe). The initial charges were filed on May 29, 2019, and an amended accusation was filed on January 12, 2021—well past the typical two-year statute of limitations for such offenses. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the statute of limitations was effectively extended by judicial emergency orders under the Judicial Emergency Act codified at  OCGA 38-3-62.

The Georgia Supreme Court clarified that the State was not required to specifically allege in the charging document or prove the application of these emergency orders to toll the statute of limitations. The Court held that since the issuance of these orders was a matter of public record and their application was automatic by law, there was no need for the State to provide additional proof or allegations regarding their effect on the case. This ruling underscores the importance for defense attorneys to be acutely aware of any judicial orders or legislative actions that may impact the timeline of a prosecution. An interesting query not addressed in this case would be whether there was a violation of the separation of powers where the judicial branch usurped the legislative branch power to create laws and set the statute of limitation for criminal prosecutions as argued in the Michigan Supreme Court in Midwest Institute of Health PLLC v. Governor, as the Michigan Supreme Court wrote in Midwest Institute of Health, PLLC v. Governor, Docket No. 1614492, (October 2, 2020).

“[T]he principal function of the separation of powers . . . is to . . . protect individual liberty[.]” Clinton v City of New York, 524 US 417, 482; 118 S Ct 2091; 141 L Ed 2d 393 (1998) (Breyer, J., dissenting). “ ‘[T]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, encroaching upon the powers of another branch or by relinquishing its own powers to another branch. self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.’ ” 46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford Co, 476 Mich 131, 141; 719 NW2d 553 (2006), quoting The Federalist No. 47 (Madison) (Rossiter ed, 1961), p 301. And as Montesquieu explained, “[w]hen the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.” Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (London: J. Nourse and P. Vaillant, 1758), Book XI, ch 6, p 216.

The legislature has the power to make laws and not to make legislators. This is exactly what O.C.G.A. 38-3-62   has done. It is therefore unconstitutional under the Georgia Constitution. A statute declared unconstitutional is deemed void from its inception. Gilbert v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 744, 751; 452 SE2d 476 (1994).

Admissibility of HGN Test Evidence: A Shift in Standards

Another significant aspect of this ruling addressed the admissibility of HGN test evidence, which is often a key element in DUI cases. The Court examined whether the admission of this evidence should be evaluated under the new standard set forth by an amendment to OCGA § 24-7-702, which aligns with the federal Daubert standard for the admissibility of expert testimony.

In Garrison’s trial, the HGN test was crucial to the prosecution’s case. However, the trial court admitted this evidence under the older, more lenient Harper standard, which has since been superseded by the Daubert standard in Georgia criminal cases after the Georgia Rules of Evidence were amended in 2013. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court should have evaluated the admissibility of the HGN evidence under the new, stricter Daubert standard under OCGA 24-7-702. As a result, the Court vacated the previous judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration under the proper legal standard.

This ruling highlights a critical update for DUI defense attorneys: the necessity of challenging the admissibility of HGN test evidence and other expert testimony under the Daubert standard. This standard requires that such testimony be both relevant and reliable, with a thorough vetting of the methods and principles underlying the expert’s conclusions.

Implications for DUI Defense

The Garrison case serves as a potent reminder of the evolving nature of legal standards and their profound impact on DUI defense. Attorneys must stay informed about current case law, particularly regarding procedural defenses like the statute of limitations and the admissibility of expert evidence. The ruling also emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing all aspects of the prosecution’s case, especially when it hinges on scientific tests like the HGN.

For DUI defense attorneys, the key takeaway from Garrison v. State is the necessity of a proactive approach in challenging both procedural and substantive elements of the prosecution’s case. By staying ahead of legal developments and rigorously defending their clients’ rights, attorneys can more effectively navigate the complexities of DUI cases and achieve better outcomes for those they represent.

As DUI defense continues to evolve with changing legal standards, the Garrison decision serves as a crucial guidepost for navigating these complexities. Attorneys representing clients in DUI cases must be vigilant in challenging the admissibility of evidence and ensuring that all procedural safeguards are rigorously upheld. In doing so, they can better protect their clients’ rights and secure fair outcomes in an increasingly complex legal environment

Contact Us Today

For a free consultation, contact the Law Offices of George Creal today on the web at www.georgecreal.com or on the phone at (404) 333-0706. We are here to help you navigate the legal system and fight for your rights.

Disclaimer

The information in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Please consult with an attorney to discuss your specific legal situation.