Bowen v. State
Decision Date | 07 January 1999 |
Docket Number | No. A98A2033.,A98A2033. |
Citation | 510 S.E.2d 873,235 Ga. App. 900 |
Parties | BOWEN v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Patterson & Patterson, Jackie G. Patterson, LaGrange, Yasma Patterson, for appellant.
Louis J. Kirby, Solicitor, for appellee.
A jury found Hollis Bowen guilty of driving under the influence of drugs to the extent that it was less safe for him to drive, and of having defective equipment on his vehicle. In his sole enumeration of error, Bowen contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was guilty of driving under the influence of drugs to the extent he was a less safe driver. Because the State provided no evidence that Bowen was a less safe driver, we reverse.
(Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Noble v. State, 225 Ga.App. 470, 484 S.E.2d 78 (1997); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). "In reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the State's case, an appellate court considers not only the evidence produced in the State's case-in-chief, but also any evidence introduced subsequent to the motion by the defense." Tyler v. State, 198 Ga.App. 685, 687-688(2), 402 S.E.2d 780 (1991).
Viewed in this light, the evidence at trial showed that on September 20, 1997, Trooper Jimmy Jones stopped Bowen's vehicle because Bowen "was pulling a boat on a trailer that did not have any tail lights on it after dark." Trooper Jones testified that after he stopped Bowen, he "noticed that his eyes were red and glassy, and his eyelids were red," and that when he asked Bowen if he had been smoking any marijuana, Bowen responded that he had smoked some a couple of hours ago. The officer could not remember whether Bowen commented on the defective tail lights, but recalled that he did not think Bowen knew they were out. A lab test confirmed that Bowen's urine tested positive for metabolites of marijuana. At trial, Bowen denied that he had admitted smoking marijuana, but stated that he told the officer he had been in a room a few hours earlier where marijuana was being smoked.
Bowen was convicted under OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(2), which provides that "[a] person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any moving vehicle while ... [u]nder the influence of any drug to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive." (Punctuation omitted.) "Although under that statute the State is not required to prove that the defendant actually committed an unsafe act, impaired driving ability is an element of the crime that the state must prove to obtain a conviction." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Webb v. State, 223 Ga.App. 9, 10, 476 S.E.2d 781 (1996). Moreover, "the mere fact that a defendant has ingested marijuana is not sufficient to support a conviction under OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(2), because that statute does not prohibit driving after ingesting any quantity of drugs." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id.1 In that regard, evidence which only shows that a defendant's eyes were "red and glassy, and he had an odor of [marijuana] about his breath" is insufficient to support a conviction for driving under the influence to the extent that it was less safe for him to drive. Clay v. State, 193 Ga.App. 377, 379(2), 387 S.E.2d 644 (1989). Compare Gilbert v. State, 262 Ga. 840, 841(1), 426 S.E.2d 155 (1993) ( ).
In this case, the State's evidence that Bowen was impaired as a result of ingesting marijuana consisted of Trooper Jones' testimony that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Driver v. State, A99A1344.
...admits that she possessed cocaine at any time within the period alleged, she would be guilty of the crime"). 5. See Bowen v. State, 235 Ga.App. 900, 510 S.E.2d 873 (1999) ("`[i]n reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the State's case, an appellate cour......
-
Head v. The State
...the defendant had impaired driving ability as a result of [the drugs].”) (Punctuation and footnote omitted); Bowen v. State, 235 Ga.App. 900, 901-902, 510 S.E.2d 873 (1999). State v. Rish, 295 Ga.App. 815, 816, 673 S.E.2d 259 (2009) ( “If the evidence shows only that a driver is intoxicated......
- Rappenecker v. LSE, INC.
-
Allen v. State
...218, 219(1), 469 S.E.2d 235 (1996). 5. See Clay v. State, 193 Ga.App. 377, 378-379(2), 387 S.E.2d 644 (1989); Bowen v. State, 235 Ga. App. 900, 510 S.E.2d 873 (1999); Davis v. State, 206 Ga.App. 647, 426 S.E.2d 267 (1992). 6. 255 Ga.App. 188, 564 S.E.2d 793 (2002). 7. Id. at 189(1), 564 S.E......