Bryant v. State
| Decision Date | 28 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 39061,No. 2,39061,2 |
| Parties | Calvin BRYANT v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Scoggin & Minge, Jerry L. Minge, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
Chastine Parker, Sol. Gen., Rome, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. On the trial of an accusation charging the defendant with the offense of driving a vehicle under the influence of intoxicants, testimony 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 under the influence of intoxicants and that he was so affected thereby as to make it less safe for him to operate the vehicle which he was in fact operating (Bartley v. State, 95 Ga.App. 422, 424(1), 98 S.E.2d 110) it is not necessary that a witness testify in so many words that in his opinion it was less safe, where the facts testified to would authorize such an inference on the part of the jury.
2. The evidence of three witnesses in this case is to the effect that the defendant was driving an automobile rather slowly along a paved street in the City of Rome at about 11 p. m. on a clear night; that the witness' automobile passed that of the defendant and as it did so the defendant cut the wheels of his car to the left, the left front fender of his automobile colliding with the right rear fender of that of the witnesses; that the driver and the defendant got out, and the defendant drew a knife on the driver and threatened him; that the two passengers then alighted and the defendant got back in his car and drove off; that the driver smelled something on his breath which smelled like liquor, although the driver did not himself drink and could not swear what he smelled was alcohol; that according to all the witnesses the defendant appeared drunk, staggered, cursed, and acted like a wild man; that within 15 minutes after the defendant drove away he was apprehended by a police officer who testified that he seemed very drunk, staggered, and could not talk plainly, and that there were three empty half-pint liquor bottles in the automobile. This evidence is sufficient upon which to predicate a guilty verdict. See Rice v. State, 98 Ga.App. 803, 107 S.E.2d 270; Parker v. State, 53 Ga.App. 344, 185 S.E. 598.
3. 'In the trial of such a case, evidence tending to show that the operator of the vehicle had whisky about his person, or in the vehicle with him, is relevant, being a circumstance for consideration by the jury upon the issue as to the operator's use of intoxicating liquors.' Hart v. State, 26 Ga.App. 64, 105 S.E. 383. It was not error to admit, over...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rubiano v. State, 55636
...588 (1964) ). Accordingly this court now has no authority to review the defendant's contentions on appeal. See also Bryant v. State, 104 Ga.App. 496(4), 121 S.E.2d 920 (1961). The court also notes that, as confirmed by prior decisions of the Supreme Court, the appellate courts of this state......
- Duke v. State, 39050
-
Hogan v. Malcom, 3
...to make it intelligible, it is necessary to refer to other parts of the record, including the charge of the court.' Bryant v. State, 104 Ga.App. 496, 497, 121 S.E.2d 920, 922. 2. There is no merit in special ground 8 which complains that the court failed to charge the jury on the measure of......