Can a Past DUI Be Used Against an At-Fault Motorist in an Auto Accident Trial?
In a wrongful death suit against a motorist arising from an auto accident, the jury awarded the family and estate of the victim (“the plaintiffs”) over $82 million in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees and expenses. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for new trial, and an appeal followed.
2012 DUI and again in 2018
In 2012, the defendant pled guilty to driving while intoxicated due to her use of Xanax, Ambien, Zoloft, two muscle relaxers, and two pain medications. She was given probation and community service.
In July 2018, she was driving with her son at an excessive rate of speed when she ran a stop sign and was struck by the victim’s vehicle. The defendant’s car rolled over before coming to a stop. The victim’s vehicle ran into some trees, and she had to be extricated from the car by emergency personnel. The victim remained alert and conscious, and was taken to the hospital with gruesome life-threatening injuries. After remaining in the hospital for about five months, she died as a result of her injuries.
When the defendant spoke with police at the scene on the day of the accident, she denied taking any medications, and police didn’t obtain a drug test. The defendant also denied the use of any medications when treated at the hospital after the accident. However, the defendant had actually taken multiple medications that day and the night before, including Ambien, Xanax, and Zoloft.
The defendant ultimately pled guilty to second degree vehicular homicide and a stop sign infraction, and she was sentenced to 12 months’ probation. The plaintiffs filed suit against her for wrongful death and for compensation on behalf of the victim’s estate. Prior to trial, the plaintiffs gave notice that they intended to introduce the 2012 DUI, along with pharmacy and medical records, to show the defendant was intoxicated on the day of the accident. The defendant objected to this evidence, noting that she’d admitted she breached her duty of care on the day of the accident, and arguing that the plaintiffs couldn’t prove she’d taken any medications or that she was impaired on the day of the crash. As such, she claimed that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative under O.C.G.A. § 24-4-403 (“Rule 403”).
Following a hearing, the trial court excluded the prior acts evidence. The trial court determined that the plaintiffs could ask the defendant about taking Xanax, Zoloft, Ambien, and blood pressure medications during the trial, but excluded any mention of the prior DUI.
During jury selection, the plaintiffs urged the trial court to reconsider admitting the prior DUI, but the trial court declined to do so, finding that any mention of the DUI would be overly prejudicial under Rule 403.
In opening statements, the plaintiffs argued that this was a DUI case and that the defendant knew the danger of driving while taking prescription medication. The plaintiffs then presented the defendant’s cross-examination testimony by previously recorded deposition. In her testimony, she admitted to speeding on the day of the accident and to taking Xanax, Zoloft, and Ambien, along with her blood pressure medications, but she was ambivalent about whether she ran the stop sign that led to the accident.
She also acknowledged that she was aware of the side effects of her medications and that it could be dangerous to drive while taking them. The defendant conceded that she didn’t tell the police or the hospital that she was taking prescribed medications on the day of the accident. She then denied having any other traffic citations, at which time the plaintiffs submitted her three previous speeding tickets. As the trial continued, the plaintiffs again raised the issue of admitting the prior DUI for impeachment and credibility purposes. The trial court reiterated its prior ruling and declined to admit the DUI during the first phase of trial.
Despite the trial court’s ruling, counsel repeatedly questioned the defendant on collateral matters to create an opportunity to impeach her with the prior DUI. During the defendant’s in-person testimony, she explained that she was a retired nurse and had been taking medications for anxiety and depression since she was a teenager. She stated that she wasn’t experiencing any side effects from those medications.
The plaintiff’s counsel continued to question the defendant about her history of taking Ambien in an attempt to elicit inconsistencies to impeach her with the prior DUI. Although the trial court repeatedly warned counsel against any mention of the 2012 conviction, it ultimately admitted the prior DUI for impeachment after the defendant gave inconsistent answers regarding how many years she had been taking Ambien. The defendant then admitted that she’d pled guilty to the 2012 DUI.
The defendant filed a motion for new trial, raising the same arguments as those she raised on appeal. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the defendant challenged the admission of the prior DUI to impeach her testimony.
Was the DUI Relevant?
Judge Todd Markle noted that the defendant argued that the prior DUI was inadmissible under O.C.G.A. § 24-4-404(b) (“Rule 404(b)”) even for impeachment because it wasn’t relevant to the issues at trial.
The defendant explained that any discrepancy in the length of time she had been taking Ambien was a collateral matter, especially where she admitted negligence in causing the accident and that she was taking it at the time. She noted that it was also improper to elicit testimony designed to create an impeachment opportunity so as to admit evidence previously excluded, and that, in doing so, the plaintiffs’ counsel repeatedly ignored the trial court’s rulings that the evidence was inadmissible. Finally, she argued that the admission of the prior DUI wasn’t harmless, as it became the crux of the plaintiffs’ case. After a thorough review of the record, the Judge Markle and the Court of Appeals panel concluded that the admission of this evidence was harmless. The Court couldn’t say it was likely that the evidence contributed to the verdict or that the defendant’s substantial rights were impacted by the admission of this evidence.
The defendant admitted taking the medications at the time of the accident and that she was aware of the potential side effects. The jury also heard that she continued to drive after the accident that injured the accident victim while taking the same medications. And, the jury was also able to evaluate the defendant’s credibility and any inconsistencies in her testimony, including her continued ambivalence about running the stop sign that caused the accident, and her omission of drug use when speaking to police.
Viewing this evidence as reasonable jurors would, Judge Markle and the appellate panel concluded that it was unlikely that the prior acts evidence contributed to the jury’s conclusion that the defendant was liable for the accident and that punitive damages were warranted. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion for new trial. Simmons v. Watson, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 357 *; 2026 LX 380406 (Ga. App. June 29, 2026)
Contact Us
Having a knowledgeable Atlanta personal injury lawyer Atlanta residents trust who has extensive experience in handling auto accident cases every day really does make a difference. Whomever you hire as your personal injury car accident lawyer must understand Georgia law and how to apply the state’s personal injury laws effectively. Ourt law firm helps victims of DUI drivers.
Our experienced Atlanta based personal injury law firm is happy to answer your questions. We offer free consultations to all prospective clients. Contact an Atlanta personal injury attorney at Tobin Injury Law 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423).