Bent of mind okay in Georgia DUI cases
Georgia Court of Appeals has ruled that an odd “bent of mind” rule that allows for the use of evidence of prior acts in DUI cases to show a propensity to drive drunk is constitutional, although unique to Georgia.
The Cite: Wade v. State, Court of Appeals of Georgia, Issued December 2, 2008 (link will be posted when available)
Excerpts from the opinion:
The State provided notice of its intent to introduce at trial a prior DUI conviction to show Wade's bent of mind and course of conduct, and the trial court held a hearing during which Wade stipulated to the admission of such evidence at trial only to prevent the State's witnesses from having to appear, but reserved, with the court's permission, the issue of the constitutionality of the admission of such evidence for appellate review. We therefore treat Wade's arguments as preserved for appeal.
Wade argues that the admission of similar transaction evidence in a case such as this, a generic DUI charge arising from a roadside traffic stop, violates due process. As Wade notes, the law in Georgia has evolved to the point of allowing the inclusion of similar transaction evidence in the trial of an unrelated offense to prove, among other things, the defendant's bent of mind, as was done here.
Compounding this danger of improper prejudice, the probative value is low in cases such as this, where a generic DUI offense is at issue, because the State does not need evidence of a prior act to show motive, intent, identity, plan, scheme, or other generally accepted rationale for admitting such evidence. As we have already recognized, in exercising discretion as to whether to admit the inflammatory evidence of prior acts,
the court should consider whether the State's need for the similar transaction evidence outweighs the prejudice inherent to the defendant. This consideration consists of at least two questions. First, is the issue for which the State is introducing the evidence a genuinely disputed issue? For example, if identity is the State's announced purpose but is not an issue contested by defendant, then the probative value of the similar transaction evidence is acutely if not fatally diminished.
As Wade's identity was not at issue, and as DUI is not a crime of specific intent, Wade contends that there was no need for the State to introduce the evidence.
Wade points out that Georgia is the only state to recognize the bent of mind exception, and we have found no authority to the contrary. Professor Paul S. Milich has studied the topic and observed that " '[b]ent of mind' is neither a traditional nor widely accepted category for the admission of independent crimes or acts. Indeed, no other American jurisdiction uses it." It is this unique feature of Georgia's law that Wade now challenges.
Nevertheless, we are not authorized to depart from the precedent of the Supreme Court of Georgia authorizing the bent of mind rationale for admitting similar transaction evidence here.
Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm the trial court's judgment, notwithstanding appellant's due process arguments.
My Analysis: Wow. My legal analysis is that this law is stupid and outrageous. The Defense in this case had one of the best and most accomplished DUI defense lawyers in the country, and still got stuck with this terrible ruling. Hopefully the Supreme Court of Georgia will fix this mess.
In the meantime, if you get a DUI in Georgia, the prosecutor can try to prove that you are a drunk in general to show that you were impaired on the date in question.
Really stupid and dangerous. From the opinion it sounds like the Court of Appeals here even thinks that the rule is insane, but doesn't want to overstep its authority and is therefore deferring to the Supreme Court.
