Georgia v. FrostAnnotate this Case
Gary Frost was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was less safe to drive. At the time of his arrest, he refused to submit to a state-administered breath test required by OCGA 40-5-55 (a). The State gave notice of its intent to present evidence at trial that Frost had driven under the influence of alcohol on two prior occasions. Frost objected to this evidence, but the trial court determined that it was relevant to prove knowledge and, therefore, would be admissible under OCGA 24-4-417, "Rule 417" (a) (1). Frost appealed, and the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court, finding that the evidence was not relevant to prove knowledge. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals misconstrued Rule 417 (a)(1). After review, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeals did misconstrue the statute, and reversed its judgment as to the admissibility of evidence that Frost had driven under the influence of alcohol on the two prior occasions.