Mule v. State
| Decision Date | 28 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | A20A0458 |
| Citation | 355 Ga.App. 239,843 S.E.2d 894 |
| Parties | MULE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Cavett Abbott & Weiss, Joshua Phillip Weiss, for Appellant.
J. Matthew Williamson, Solicitor-General, Alan C. Norton, Assistant Solicitor-General, for appellee.
A jury found Gina Mule guilty of reckless driving. Following the denial of her motion for new trial, Mule appeals, asserting several claims of error. Having reviewed these claims, we find no reversible error and therefore affirm.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 318-319 (III) (B), 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). So construed, the evidence showed that Mule drove to the back parking lot of her son's high school to pick him up after school, although carpool took place in the front of the school. School buses picked up students from the back of the school, and as Mule drove to the back parking lot, she drove around and past three or four moving buses that were in line to turn into a designated "bus loop." As one of the buses with children aboard was turning left into the bus loop, it stopped suddenly to avoid hitting Mule's vehicle. The bus driver, Deborah Harmon, testified that she was driving five miles per hour when Mule, who appeared to not be paying attention, passed her on the left side as she was making a left turn, and that Harmon was inches away from hitting Mule's vehicle when she slammed on the bus's brakes.
A second bus driver testified that she was driving one of the buses "rolling" behind Harmon and that she attempted to radio Harmon to tell her that Mule was about to pass her. She stated further that students were walking in the area, that Mule "almost hit the bus," and that Harmon had to "slam [on] her brakes." The assistant principal, Maggie Stultz, was helping load the school buses, and from about 150 yards away, she observed Mule's vehicle pass the buses moving in the same direction and that Harmon's bus suddenly came to a stop. Stultz then radioed the school resource officer. The resource officer approached Mule, asked for her license and insurance, and then asked her to come inside the school where he issued her a traffic citation for reckless driving.
Mule left the school and went to the office of the chief of police to file a complaint against the resource officer because, in her opinion, she felt that the officer had harassed her and did not follow proper protocol. At trial Mule admitted that she "passed alongside three or four buses." She asserted, however, that the buses were stationary and parked at the time, did not have flashing lights, and did not have their stop signs out, and that she followed the speed limit.
1. (a) Mule argues that the State failed to sufficiently prove that she disregarded the safety of others. She contends that there was no proof that she was speeding, weaving, or blaring music, no allegation that she was intoxicated, and no evidence of signs prohibiting drivers from the area at certain times of the day. Mule argues further that there was no evidence she drove on the wrong side of the road or failed to maintain her lane, and any assertion that Harmon had to slam on her brakes to avoid a collision was "hyperbolic and an exaggeration." OCGA § 40-6-390 (a) provides "[a]ny person who drives any vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property commits the offense of reckless driving." And "whether a defendant's manner of driving under the circumstances demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of others is a question that is reserved for the jury." Turner v. State , 342 Ga. App. 882, 884 (1), 805 S.E.2d 624 (2017) (citation omitted). This Court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility. Martinez v. State , 315 Ga. App. 727, 728 S.E.2d 255 (2012).
Here, there was evidence from which the jury could conclude that Mule was driving in excess of the posted speed limit during school dismissal in an area where students were present, and evidence that she drove past a moving school bus with students aboard, causing the bus driver to suddenly brake to avoid hitting Mule's vehicle. This was sufficient to establish that Mule drove her vehicle in a manner exhibiting a reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property. See Winston v. State , 270 Ga. App. 664, 665 (1) (a), 607 S.E.2d 147 (2004) (); Young v. State , 294 Ga. App. 227, 231, 669 S.E.2d 407 (2008) ().
(b) Mule also argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. She argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction because the traffic citation and her "non-custodial arrest" were based upon what the resource officer was told by others and not his personal observation of the incident. See OCGA § 17-4-23 (a) (1) (). Although Mule was initially issued a traffic citation for reckless driving, two months later the State charged her with the crime by accusation. She was not prosecuted under the citation, but under the superseding accusation. See Walker v. State , 280 Ga. App. 393, 395 (2), 634 S.E.2d 177 (2006) (); Smith v. State , 239 Ga. App. 515, 517 (2), 521 S.E.2d 450 (1999) (). Notably, the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Mule guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of reckless driving as charged in the accusation. This claim of error is therefore without merit.
2. Mule asserts that Stultz and Harmon violated the rule of sequestration and that the court erred in denying her request to strike their testimony.1 "The decision of whether to allow a witness to testify in violation of the rule of sequestration is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless such discretion is abused." Rakestrau v. State , 278 Ga. 872, 876 (4), 608 S.E.2d 216 (2005).
After the matter was brought to the court's attention, a spectator at the trial testified that she had observed Stultz and Harmon conversing in the hallway after Stultz testified and before Harmon testified. A second spectator testified that she had also observed the two having a conversation and that she overheard Stultz tell Harmon, "you need to tell them how you slammed on the brakes on the school bus." Stultz was called back to the stand and admitted to having a conversation with Harmon and other bus drivers in the hallway outside of the courtroom. She explained that she and the bus drivers discussed what they had witnessed at the school on the day of the incident, and that she told them she wished she had remembered certain details while on the stand. However, Stultz denied otherwise...
To continue reading
Request your trial