Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; April 21, 2014; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Duandre Jamar Dorsey was found guilty by a Whitfield County jury of failure to yield the right of way, driving under the influence (DUI) to the extent that it was less safe to drive, and causing serious injury by vehicle, in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391, following a jury trial. Dorsey appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. However, the court disagreed, stating that when the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, it demonstrates sufficient grounds for the jury's decision.
The incident occurred on September 17, 2011, when a police officer observed Dorsey’s vehicle almost collide with another car while entering traffic. After initiating a traffic stop, Dorsey denied consuming alcohol but performed poorly on field sobriety tests, exhibiting multiple signs of impairment. An alco-sensor breath test later confirmed the presence of alcohol. During the arrest attempt, Dorsey resisted, leading to a struggle that resulted in the officer being thrown from the vehicle, sustaining serious injuries.
Dorsey was later found hiding in a home days after fleeing the scene. He was indicted on multiple charges, including DUI, failure to yield, and serious injury by vehicle. The jury acquitted him of aggravated battery but convicted him on the other counts. In assessing Dorsey's appeal regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the court clarified that it does not weigh evidence or assess witness credibility but rather evaluates if a rational jury could find the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
Under OCGA § 40-6-73, a driver entering or crossing a roadway from a non-roadway location must yield to approaching vehicles. In this case, Dorsey entered Chattanooga Road from a parking lot and nearly caused a collision, as testified by the arresting officer. Dorsey contested the incident, noting the absence of an accident report or video evidence and asserting that the officer's testimony was uncorroborated. However, the law allows a single witness’s testimony to establish a fact, leading to a conclusion that a rational jury could find Dorsey guilty of failure to yield.
OCGA § 40-6-391 (a.1) prohibits driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it becomes unsafe. Dorsey argued his behavior did not indicate impairment, citing his appropriate driving once followed by the officer and his cooperation during field sobriety tests. Despite this, evidence such as the smell of alcohol, positive alco-sensor results, open containers in his vehicle, and his erratic driving led to the conclusion that a rational jury could determine he was driving under the influence.
Further, OCGA § 40-6-394 states that causing bodily harm through a DUI violation constitutes serious injury by vehicle. Dorsey did not dispute the evidence showing he caused bodily harm to the officer but challenged the sufficiency of evidence for the DUI charge. However, the court found sufficient evidence for DUI less safe, enabling a rational jury to find him guilty of serious injury by vehicle. The judgment was affirmed.
Dorsey was also convicted of reckless driving, escape, serious injury by vehicle (via DUI), and multiple counts of giving a false name and obstruction of justice, with no challenge to the evidence supporting these convictions. The trial court merged his convictions for sentencing purposes, combining the serious injury counts related to both DUI and reckless driving.
Dorsey’s DUI conviction was merged with his conviction for serious injury by vehicle; however, a DUI conviction under OCGA § 40-6-391 is necessary for a serious injury conviction under OCGA § 40-6-394. Dorsey contends that 'flashlights' can affect the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, but the arresting officer testified that he turned off the flashing lights to better assess eye movement. Evidence supporting Dorsey’s DUI less safe conviction included testimony of erratic driving, the smell of alcohol, belligerent behavior, and an open container in his truck. The jury could also consider Dorsey’s flight from the scene as indicative of unsafe driving. Similar supporting evidence for DUI less safe convictions is referenced from Lee v. State, which included speeding, odd behavior, alcohol odor, and open containers in the vehicle.
