Bench:
Justice Blackwell, Justice Bethel
Plaintiff:
State of Georgia
Defendant:
Andrea Elliot
Issue
Can refusal to an act be used against the defendant in the court as evidence at a criminal trial?
Facts
- Andrea Elliot was prosecuted for driving under the influence of alcohol.
- When she was arrested, she refused to submit to a breath test.
- Georgia statutes allowed the state to use her refusal against her in her criminal trial.
Plaintiff’s Contentions
- The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution did not bar the state from using such a refusal, because under Fifth Amendment, Elliot had no right to refuse to act in the first place.
Defendant’s Contentions
- Elliot argued that Article 1, Section1, Paragraph XVI of the Georgia Constitution gave her the right to refuse such a test and the Fifth Amendment did not, and thus rendered invalid the portions of the statutes allowing her refusal to be admitted against her.
Relevant paragraphs: (paragraph II (B), and III(C) of the original judgement)
- A second explanatory insinuation arises from applying an original public meaning analysis to a constitutional provision that has been readopted without physical change in multiple constitutions, and this principle involves our elucidations of the previous constitutions.
- Their case law shows a reliable and conclusive edifice with at least six of their decisions under the 1877 Constitution cited or applied the holding of “Day”, all of them reinforcing the construction that the self-incrimination clause protected affirmative acts, but did not forbid taking evidence from the defendant
Judgement
The Georgia Supreme Court agreed and the OCGA 40-5-67-1(b) and 40-6-392(d) were ruled unconstitutional to the extent that they allowed a defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test to be admitted into evidence at a criminal trial against her. The Court thus reversed the Trial Court’s denial to Elliott’s motion to suppress.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
