Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal concerning the specificity of a Uniform Traffic Citation (UTC) issued to an individual charged with a violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 for driving under the influence (DUI). The citation did not specify whether it pertained to subsection (a.1) or (a.4), leading the defendant to file a motion to quash the citation for ambiguity. The city court denied the motion, and the superior court affirmed this decision, ruling that the ambiguity constituted harmless error. The court concluded that the breath test result of 0.28 grams provided sufficient notice of the DUI charge, thus meeting the notice requirements despite the citation's lack of specificity. The court referenced *Scott v. State* and *Kuptz v. State* to support its ruling, emphasizing that there was no evidence suggesting an intention to charge under subsection (a.1), which involves child endangerment. The defendant failed to demonstrate any harm resulting from the citation's ambiguity, leading the court to affirm the judgment. Judges McMurray and Blackburn concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Harmless Error Doctrinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the harmless error doctrine, finding that any ambiguity in the UTC did not harm Hankins as he failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the lack of specificity.
Reasoning: Hankins did not demonstrate harm from the lack of specificity in the citation, which was his burden to prove.
Notice Requirement for DUI Chargessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the breath test result of 0.28 grams provided sufficient notice of the DUI charge, satisfying the requirements for specificity related to alcohol-related charges.
Reasoning: The UTC indicated that Hankins was charged with DUI based on a breath test result of 0.28 grams, which the court found provided adequate notice of the DUI charge.
Relevance of Subsection Specification in DUI Chargessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted that the omission of a specific subsection did not imply the intention to charge under subsection (a.1) due to the lack of specific factual allegations required for such a charge.
Reasoning: The court cited *Kuptz v. State* to support its conclusions, noting that there was no indication the State intended to charge Hankins under subsection (a.1), which involves endangering a child while driving under the influence, as it would require specific factual allegations.
Sufficiency of Uniform Traffic Citation under OCGA § 40-6-391subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated whether the UTC provided adequate notice of the charges despite not specifying the subsection under which Hankins was charged.
Reasoning: The superior court upheld the city court's denial of a motion to quash for ambiguity, concluding that the error was harmless.