Krull v. State

• Decision Date: 19 November 1993
• Docket Number: No. A93A1081,A93A1081
• Parties: KRULL v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 152

438 S.E.2d 152

211 Ga.App. 37

KRULL v. The STATE.

No. A93A1081.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Nov. 19, 1993.

Bray & Johnson, H. Michael Bray, Canton, Christopher J. McFadden, Decatur, for appellant.

Paul L. Howard, Jr., Solicitor, Denise A. Hinds, Deborah W. Espy, Asst. Solicitors, for appellee.

SMITH, Judge.

Daniel Stephan Krull was convicted of driving under the influence, no proof of insurance, driving with a suspended license, and failure to maintain lane.

1. Krull contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict and for new trial. We agree and reverse.

The uncontradicted evidence at trial showed that Krull, who did not own a car, became intoxicated at a bar in Sandy Springs. When he realized it was so late that the buses were no longer running, he called his father to pick him up. His father, concerned because Krull sounded as if he were intoxicated, took his older car because he was afraid Krull might become ill in the car. However, while Krull's father was driving home the brakes in the older car failed and the car struck a concrete island. At trial a mechanic confirmed that the brakes had failed due to a faulty master cylinder. Because Krull was so intoxicated that he was a hindrance and his father "didn't want to carry him around," he told Krull to wait in the car while he went for help. However, when he returned the car and his son were gone, because in the meantime, his son had been arrested and the car had been towed away.

The arresting officer testified that he came upon the wrecked car at the corner of Copeland and Roswell Roads. He saw from a distance that the car was wrecked, and walked up on the driver's side to see if anyone was in it. He found Krull sitting "in the driver's portion of vehicle." On redirect he added that Krull was "behind the wheel." Krull was so intoxicated that he was unable to recite the alphabet.

The officer initially testified that Krull stated "I just want to move my car or something like that; or I'm just trying to get my car off the roadway." On cross-examination, he admitted that he did not remember and did not write down Krull's exact words, and particularly did not remember if Krull referred to the car as "my car." He agreed that the substance of Krull's statement was that he wanted to move the vehicle. However the officer conceded that the car was inoperable.

The officer testified that no wallet or keys were found in his search of the car, and he did not recall if there were keys in the ignition. He never actually saw anyone driving the car. The officer did not recall whether or not Krull said someone else was driving, but testified that he would have recorded such a statement by Krull in his report "only if there were some way to really substantiate that, yeah, there had been." However, even though the officer testified that he would have checked the car's registration as a matter of routine, he did not use that information to locate or contact the registered owner of the car.

OCGA § 24-4-6 provides: "To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused." The burden is on the State to present evidence excluding every other reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt. Cornish v. State, 187 Ga.App. 140, 142, 369 S.E.2d 515 (1988).

"While the determination of whether the circumstances are sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of defendant's guilt is usually made by the jury and while we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, we must not be blinded by that verdict when a reasonable hypothesis of innocence appears from the evidence or lack thereof, and may declare such as a matter of law. [Cits.]" Brooks v. State, 206 Ga.App. 485, 486-487(1), 425 S.E.2d 911 (1992).

In this case, the officer testified that he observed Krull "in the driver's portion of the vehicle," or "behind the wheel." He further stated, though uncertain of the exact words used, that Krull said in so many words that he wanted to move the vehicle. This is the sum total of the circumstantial evidence identifying Krull as the driver.

There are a number of decisions in which DUI convictions have been upheld on circumstantial evidence, against the defendant's assertion that the evidence failed to prove that he was the driver of the car. However, in all those cases, the evidence revealed specific facts supporting the State's contention that the defendant was indeed the driver. Such facts are absent here.

In State v. Hill, 178 Ga.App. 669, 344 S.E.2d 491 (1986), when the investigating officer asked how the accident occurred, the defendant stated, "I swerved to miss a dog." The defendant in Melendy v. State, 202 Ga.App. 638(1), 415 S.E.2d 62 (1992), admitted that he had driven to his location from a football game. The general substance of Krull's statement as recounted by the officer does not establish that Krull ever identified the vehicle as his own, nor that he admitted to driving the vehicle to the place where it was found.

In other cases affirming convictions on circumstantial evidence, there were other indicia of recent operation of the car. See, e.g., Phillips v. State, 185 Ga.App. 54(1), 363 S.E.2d 283 (1987) (officer found defendant behind the wheel, with the engine running and the lights on); Jones v. State, 187 Ga.App. 132(1), 369 S.E.2d 509 (1988) (car was not on scene 20 to 30 minutes previously; officer found defendant slumped over the wheel at a railroad crossing, with the engine running and transmission in "drive"); Melendy v. State, supra (officer observed defendant putting gas in car and attempting to start the engine). In still other cases, there were indicia of ownership such as registration of the car in the defendant's name, Frye v. State, 189 Ga.App. 181, 375 S.E.2d 101 (1988); possession of car keys after fleeing the scene of the accident, Henson v. State, 205 Ga.App. 419, 422 S.E.2d 265 (1992); or a statement by the accused that no one else could move the car, hence asserting ownership and control over it, Melendy v. State, supra.

Here, in contrast, there was no testimony that the keys were in Krull's possession and no previous observation of the car in motion or of an attempt by Krull to start it. The car was inoperable, the engine was not running, and there was no testimony indicating that it had been driven recently, such as a warm engine or hood. Unlike the Frye case, there was no evidence that the car was registered in Krull's name, and there was uncontradicted evidence that it was not his car and that he was not permitted to drive it.

Finally, the evidence in this case fails to exclude the hypothesis that Krull's father was driving the car and went to seek help after the accident. In contrast to Frye or Phillips, supra, where the missing or "unidentified" person suggested by defendant as the driver never appeared at trial, Krull's father appeared and testified that he was in fact the driver of the car. He offered an uncontradicted and unimpeached explanation for his absence from the scene and for the accident, which was corroborated by the testimony of the mechanic who repaired the car. The evidence in this case is equally consistent with the hypothesis that Krull's father, not Krull, was the driver of the car. It follows that the jury was not authorized by the evidence presented to find Krull guilty of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

A directed verdict of acquittal should be granted where "there is no conflict in the evidence and the evidence introduced with all reasonable deductions and inferences...