Cavender v. State

• Decision Date: 02 May 1933
• Docket Number: No. 23011.,23011.
• Citation: 169 S.E. 253,46 Ga.App. 782
• Parties: CAVENDER. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

46 Ga.App. 782

169 S.E. 253

CAVENDER.

v.STATE.

No. 23011.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

May 2, 1933.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. On the trial of one charged with driving an automobile on a public street and highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquors, evidence that two full pints of whisky were found in the defendant's automobile on said occasion was admissible, because it was so logically connected that it tended to prove or establish an element of the offense charged, viz., being under the influence of intoxicating liquors.

2: "A witness who had, and was able to improve, suitable opportunities for observation, may state whether a person was intoxicated and the extent of his intoxication. * * * Drunkenness is 'easy of detection and difficult of explanation.' "

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, no error of law is shown, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Error from Superior Court, Walker County; James Maddox, Judge.

J. C. Cavender was convicted of operating an automobile upon a public street and highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquors and drugs, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Horace Shattuck and Farlss & Eangford, all of La Fayette, for plaintiff in error.

James F. Kelly, Sol. Gen., of Rome, and J. Ralph Rosser, of La Fayette, for the State.

MacINTYRE, Judge.

J. C. Cavender was convicted of operating an automobile upon a public street and highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquors and drugs. The defendant made a motion for a new trial based upon the general grounds and one special ground. The testimony of the chief of police was, in effect, that the accused was operating his automobile upon a named public street and highway, and that after passing the accused on said street he "turned around as soon as he could and went back in the direction of Mr. Cavender"; that the accused had stopped in front of a house; and that he got out and arrested the accused, who was in his car slumped over the wheel. The witness testified positively that the accused was drunk, giving the facts upon which he based this statement. A policeman who was with the chief of police when he made the arrest testified also that the accused was drunk. The deputy sheriff testified that the accused was drunk when they brought him to the jail on that occasion. In the case of Durham v. State, 166 Ga. 561, 562(3), 144 S. E. 109, 110, it was said that: "A witness who had, and was able to improve, suitable opportunities for observation, may state whether a person was intoxicated and the extent of his intoxication. * * * Drunkenness is 'easy of detection, and difficult of explanation.' * * * 'The acts, conduct, and demeanor of a person under the influence of intoxicants cannot be accurately reproduced, and for this reason the question of intoxication is better determined from the direct answers of those who saw him, than from any description of his conduct.'" The facts recited in that case are very similar to the facts in the present case, and the law therein stated seems to be...