As a seasoned DUI defense attorney serving the Enotah Judicial Circuit, I will share insights from a recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision, State v. Nelson (913 S.E.2d 388, decided February 26, 2025), which reversed a trial court’s dismissal of DUI charges in Lumpkin County. This case highlights procedural protections for the State’s right to prosecute and underscores the importance of skilled legal advocacy in DUI cases. For anyone facing DUI charges in Dahlonega or elsewhere in the Enotah Circuit, this ruling offers valuable lessons on how courts handle pretrial motions and what it takes to navigate these complex cases effectively.
The Case: A DUI Incident at a Dahlonega Hotel
On November 21, 2021, Lumpkin County law enforcement responded to a 911 call at a Dahlonega hotel regarding a possible intoxicated driver in the parking lot. A hotel employee and a bystander reported concerns about Kara Sue Nelson’s erratic driving. Officers found Nelson disoriented, confused, and smelling strongly of alcohol.
Nelson’s defense team filed multiple pretrial motions, including a motion to suppress evidence, a general and special demurrer, an objection to the State’s notice of other acts evidence, and a motion to dismiss all charges. The trial court held a hearing focused on the motion to suppress, where officers testified about witness statements, their observations of Nelson, the breath test result, and her refusal of a blood test. Notably, the motion to dismiss was not discussed during the hearing.
Trial Court’s Ruling: A Misstep on Dismissal
The trial court denied Nelson’s motion to suppress and demurrers, finding the accusation sufficiently detailed to put her on notice of the charges. However, in a surprising move, the court issued a separate order granting the motion to dismiss, ruling that the State failed to prove Nelson committed a “less safe” act while driving or that her driving ability was impaired. The court deemed the evidence of her intoxication and control of a moving vehicle—primarily witness statements—insufficient, as it was hearsay, and concluded there was no probable cause for her DUI arrest. This led to the dismissal of all charges before trial.
Court of Appeals Reversal: Protecting the State’s Right to Prosecute
The State, represented by Lumpkin County District Attorney Office, appealed, arguing that lack of probable cause and insufficient evidence are improper grounds for dismissing a pretrial accusation. The Georgia Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Pipkin, unanimously reversed the trial court’s dismissal, applying a “plain legal error” standard of review. Key points from the decision include:
- Limited Grounds for Dismissal: The court reiterated that trial courts may dismiss criminal charges only in specific circumstances: (1) a defect on the face of the accusation or indictment, (2) want of prosecution, or (3) a violation of the defendant’s due process rights. The trial court’s dismissal based on insufficient evidence and lack of probable cause did not fall within these grounds.
- No Pretrial Probable Cause Review: Citing First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. in Macon v. State (237 Ga. 112, 1976), the court emphasized that once an accusation is filed, the State is not required to make a further showing of probable cause pretrial. The trial court lacked authority to dismiss the charges on this basis, as such an inquiry improperly interferes with the State’s prosecutorial discretion.
- Evidence Sufficiency Not Pretrial Issue: The court, relying on Thomas v. State (331 Ga. App. 641, 2015), held that pretrial dismissal cannot be based on the sufficiency or legality of evidence. This is a matter for trial, where the State has the right to present its case-in-chief.
- Abuse of Discretion: By dismissing the charges without a legal basis, the trial court abused its discretion and deprived the State of its right to prosecute, as noted in State v. Bachan (321 Ga. App. 712, 2013).
The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, reinstating the charges and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Implications for DUI Defense in the Enotah Judicial Circuit
For DUI defendants in Lumpkin, Towns, Union, and White Counties, State v. Nelson offers critical insights:
- Pretrial Motion Strategy: Defense attorneys may file motions to suppress or demurrers, but motions to dismiss based on insufficient evidence or lack of probable cause are unlikely to succeed pretrial. Focus on challenging the legality of stops, arrests, or evidence collection instead.
- Hearsay and Probable Cause: The trial court’s reliance on hearsay concerns (witness statements about Nelson’s driving) to dismiss charges was improper. Hearsay can support probable cause for an arrest, as seen in cases like State v. Brooks (301 Ga. App. 355, 2009), and such issues are better addressed at trial.
- Prosecutorial Discretion: The ruling reinforces the State’s broad authority to decide whom to prosecute and what charges to bring. Defendants must prepare for trial unless a clear legal defect (e.g., a flawed accusation) exists.
- Implied Consent and Refusals: Nelson’s refusal of a blood test after a positive breath test highlights the consequences of declining chemical tests under Georgia’s implied consent law (OCGA § 40-5-67.1). Refusals can be used as evidence of impairment, strengthening the State’s case.
A Note on Due Process Concerns
In discussing the case at the firm, Eric Bernstein, an accomplished Lumpkin County DUI lawyer at my firm, raised a valid concern: subjecting a defendant to prosecution after a judge finds no probable cause could implicate due process rights. While the Court of Appeals did not address this directly, it noted that due process violations can justify dismissal in extreme cases (e.g., State v. Blackwell, 245 Ga. App. 135, 2000). However, the trial court’s probable cause finding here was premature, as probable cause disputes typically arise in suppression hearings, not dismissal motions. The problem here is that the trial court erred in framing its ruling as a dismissal rather than a suppression order. A motion to reconsider on remand would be appropriate to allow the trial court to correct it’s order.
Why This Matters for You
If you’re facing DUI charges in Dahlonega or elsewhere in the Enotah Judicial Circuit, State v. Nelson underscores the importance of hiring an experienced DUI attorney who understands the nuances of pretrial motions and prosecutorial discretion. At George C. Creal, Jr., P.C., we leverage cases like this to craft strategic defenses, whether challenging evidence admissibility or negotiating with prosecutors. Our team, including attorneys like Eric Bernstein, Justin Goodman and Claudia Creal are dedicated to protecting your rights and achieving the best possible outcome.
Contact Us for Real DUI Defense
Don’t let a DUI charge derail your life. Contact George C. Creal, Jr., P.C., at (404) 333-0706 or visit www.georgecreal.com to schedule a consultation. With offices in Atlanta and Forest Park, we proudly serve Lumpkin, Towns, Union, and White Counties, delivering the Real Deal in DUI defense.
George C. Creal, Jr., is a trial lawyer with over 25 years of experience defending DUI and injury cases across Georgia. This blog is for informational purposes and not legal advice.