Frost v. the State (2014)

To identify the circumstances in which evidence of driving under the influence on other occasions might be relevant to show “knowledge, plan, or absence of mistake or accident,” the Court of Appeals looked to the commentary of Professor Paul S. Milich, 328 Ga. App. at 343 (2), who has written that Rule 417 (a) (1) was enacted to address a “specific situation”: [W]hen the defendant took and failed the [state-administered] test in the prior DUI and the defendant refused the te…

To identify the circumstances in which evidence of driving under the influence on other occasions might be relevant to show “knowledge, plan, or absence of mistake or accident,” the Court of Appeals looked to the commentary of Professor Paul S. Milich, 328 Ga. App. at 343 (2), who has written that Rule 417 (a) (1) was enacted to address a “specific situation”: [W]hen the defendant took and failed the [state-administered] test in the prior DUI and the defendant refused the te…

A while later, the jurors sent out a second note indicating that they “[could] not reach a unanimous decision on Count 2 for both defendants.” Because the trial court 13 Frost v. State, 328 Ga. App. 337, 339-40 (1) ( 761 SE2d 875 ) (2014) (punctuation omitted), reversed on other grounds by Case No. S14G1767 (decided June 15, 2015); accord Wilson v. State, 229 Ga. App. 455, 455 ( 494 SE2d 267 ) (1997); see also State v. Goble, 231 Ga. App. 697, 699 ( 500 SE2d 35 ) (1996) (“Th…

Relying on this Court’s decision in Frost v. State, 328 Ga. App. 337 ( 761 SE2d 875 ) (2014) (“Frost I”), the trial court concluded that Tittle’s prior DUI conviction could be introduced only if, during the presentation of his defense, Tittle attempted “to suggest that he did not take the test because he did not understand it, or he did not know that he could take a test, or that he would never take such a test.” Frost I, 328 Ga. App. at 343 (2) (citation and punctuation omi…

Curry correctly notes that, under the old Evidence Code, “course of conduct” and “bent of mind” were listed among the purposes for introducing similar-transaction evidence, but “under the new Evidence Code, ‘course of conduct’ and “bent of mind’ are no longer acceptable bases for admitting similar transaction evidence.” Frost v. State, 328 Ga. App. 337, 342 (2) ( 761 SE2d 875 ) (2014); see also Johnson v. State, 292 Ga. 22, 25 (2), n.3 ( 733 SE2d 736 ) (2012). 6 Jones, 326 G…

See Frost, 328 Ga. App. at 341 (1) (holding that trial court erred in insisting upon a mistrial as to all counts when jury had indicated that it was only hung as to one count, and noting that the trial court erred because it “could easily have followed the less drastic alternative of accepting the jury’s verdict on the decided counts and declaring a mistrial only on the undecided count,” such that there was no manifest necessity to grant a mistrial (punctuation omitted)), re…