Gregoire v. State
| Decision Date | 16 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. A07A0034.,A07A0034. |
| Parties | GREGOIRE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William C. Head, Head, Thomas, Webb & Willis, Atlanta, for Appellant.
Carmen D. Smith, Solicitor-General, for Appellee.
Following a bench trial, the court found Peter Gregoire guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent he was a less safe driver and guilty of making an improper lane change. Gregoire appeals, alleging there was insufficient probable cause that he was impaired by alcohol to make a custodial arrest for driving under the influence and the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. We find no error and affirm Gregoire's convictions.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the jury's verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, this Court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.1 Resolving evidentiary conflicts and inconsistencies is a matter of credibility for the finder of fact, not this Court.2 As long as there is some evidence, even though contradicted, to support each necessary element of the state's case, this Court will uphold the jury's verdict.3
Viewed in that light, the evidence shows that an officer with the Fulton County Police Department observed a vehicle being driven erratically around 2:15 a.m. The vehicle, traveling faster than 94 miles per hour, swerved in and out of its lane of travel at least five times. In addition, the vehicle made a number of lane changes over the gore area of the highway. According to the officer,
as we're going 400 South, he was in the far-right lane that led to 285 westbound. And as he almost got on 285 westbound, or the ramp to it, he swerved across the—to the left across the gore, into what then became the right-most lane which led to 285 eastbound. And I—just before he got on, all the way on the ramp, he swerved across the gore area again, where [the] 285 westbound ramp is.
The officer initiated a traffic stop and noted that Gregoire, the vehicle's driver, had "bloodshot, sleepy-looking eyes," slow and uncoordinated movements, and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. The officer also noticed that Gregoire slurred his words when responding to questioning. The officer requested that Gregoire undertake some field sobriety evaluations, which Gregoire agreed to do.
Prior to the administration of the field sobriety evaluations, the officer observed that Gregoire was unsteady on his feet. During the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the officer noted a lack of smooth pursuit in each eye, distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation in both eyes, and the onset of nystagmus prior to a 45 degree angle in both eyes. Gregoire also exhibited six out of the possible eight clues in the walk-and-turn evaluation, and failed the one-leg-stand evaluation. Based on his observations of Gregoire's erratic driving, Gregoire's performance on the field sobriety evaluations, and the officer's experience in seeing people in various stages of intoxication, the officer determined that Gregoire had been driving while under the influence of alcohol to the extent he was a less safe driver. He placed Gregoire under arrest, then read Gregoire the Georgia implied consent warning and requested that Gregoire take a breath test. Gregoire refused the breath test.
At that point, Gregoire complained of chest pain and was transferred to the hospital for observation. After an examination, Gregoire was neither admitted to the hospital nor prescribed any medication. In fact, the officer testified that he saw Gregoire jogging in place at the hospital.
An inventory search of Gregoire's vehicle revealed several unopened beer bottles on ice and two empty beer bottles that would have been within easy reach of Gregoire while he was driving. At trial Gregoire admitted he had consumed "a couple" of beers the night of the incident.
1. Gregoire contends there was insufficient probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence of alcohol. We disagree. The facts necessary to establish probable cause for arrest are much less than those required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial; the test merely requires a probability—less than a certainty but more than a mere suspicion or possibility.4 Under the circumstances presented here, sufficient probable cause to conduct a DUI arrest only requires that an officer have knowledge that a suspect was actually in physical control of a moving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree which renders him incapable of driving safely.5
Even without the failed field sobriety tests which Gregoire challenges, the experienced officer's undisputed testimony that Gregoire traveled at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bostic v. State
...S.E.2d 649 (2011). A “probability” is “less than a certainty but more than a mere suspicion or possibility.” Gregoire v. State, 285 Ga.App. 111, 113(1), 645 S.E.2d 611 (2007) (footnote omitted). Thus, to arrest a suspect for DUI less safe to drive, an officer must “have knowledge or reasona......
-
Brown v. State
... ... (Footnotes omitted.) Gregoire v. State, 285 Ga.App. 111, 113(1), 645 S.E.2d 611 (2007) ... Here, the deputy observed that Brown had trouble getting out of his car, that he was unsteady on his feet and almost fell, that his eyes were glassy and blood-shot, that his body and breath smelled of an alcoholic ... ...
-
Freeman v. State
... ... Regardless, the State's contention that urgent circumstances existed here has little merit in light of the fact that evidence of a defendant's blood-alcohol content is not required in order for the State to prove that a defendant is guilty of DUI less safe beyond a reasonable doubt. See Gregoire v. State;8 Lewis v. State.9 In addition, "[a] police officer may give opinion testimony as to the state of sobriety of a DUI suspect and whether [the suspect] was under the influence to the extent it made him less safe to drive." Lewis, supra, 214 Ga.App. at 832(1), 449 S.E.2d 535. As is the case ... ...
-
Murphy v. State
...doubt at trial; the test merely requires a probability — less than a certainty but more than a mere suspicion or possibility." Gregoire v. State.3 "When reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress, . . . [t]he evidence is construed most favorably to uphold the findings and ju......