Bagley v. State, 37511
Decision Date | 15 January 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 37511,37511,2 |
Citation | 98 Ga.App. 825,107 S.E.2d 232 |
Parties | C. P. BAGLEY v. STATE |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
E. B. Shaw, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Andrew J. Whalen, Jr., Sol. Gen., Griffin, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. On the trial of the defendant for driving while under the influence of intoxicants, evidence that at about 9 p. m. or a little later on the evening in question the defendant drove up to the witness' store and, while purchasing cigarettes, poured some liquor from a whisky bottle 'fifth' into a Coca Cola bottle, consumed about three drinks, appeared intoxicated, had a fit of crying and then vomited over the side of the car, and smelled of liquor; that he then drove off at high speed after remaining there twenty to thirty minutes; and that between 10 and 10:30 p. m. on the same night his automobile was found wrecked and the defendant lying in the road near it; that he appeared very drunk at that time, there was a strong odor of whisky on his breath, his eyes were glassy, his speech was impaired and he staggered while walking; that he was not badly injured but had a sprained ankle, was, when taken in its entirety, amply sufficient to support a verdict finding the defendant guilty of driving while intoxicated. The defendant raised no issue as to who was driving the automobile at the time when it was wrecked on the highway but merely stated to the jury, And, regardless of whether the circumstantial evidence would have been sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that the defendant was driving the vehicle at the time it was wrecked, the testimony of the first witness was sufficient to show that he was driving it and that he was in a state of intoxication at the time he left the witness' store.
The case thus differs from Waters v. State, 90 Ga.App. 329, 83 S.E.2d 25, cited by the plaintiff in error, where not only was the defendant not seen to have been drinking or driving in a drunken condition before the collision, but he had an opportunity thereafter to become drunk, and there was no testimony as to the time when the drinking occurred. The general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit. Code, § 68-307; Mons v. State, 84 Ga.App. 340, 66 S.E.2d 159; McGregor v. State, 89 Ga.App. 522, 80 S.E.2d 67; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lawrence v. State, 60931
...stating the facts upon which the opinion is based. Fountain v. Smith, 103 Ga.App. 192(1), 118 S.E.2d 852 (1961); Bagley v. Smith, 98 Ga.App. 825, 826(2), 107 S.E.2d 232 (1959); Harris v. State, 97 Ga.App. 495(3), 103 S.E.2d 443 (1958); Joiner v. State, 51 Ga.App. 463(1), 180 S.E. 911 (1935)......
-
Bryant v. State
...of a witness that the defendant was intoxicated to the extent it was less safe for him to drive is opinion evidence. Bagley v. State, 98 Ga.App. 825 (2), 107 S.E.2d 232. While to convict it is necessary to show facts sufficient to authorize a finding by the jury both that the defendant was ......
-
Fulton County v. Goodman, 37320
... ... 5] TOWNSEND, Judge ... This case is controlled by State Highway Dept. v. Wilson, 98 Ga.App. 619, 106 S.E.2d 544, State Highway Dept. v. Blalock, 98 Ga.App ... ...
-
Morris v. Bruce, 37498
... ... to her daughter on account of her sense of maternal love and affection prevailing, failed to state a cause of action, and the trial court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition ... ...