Chance v. State
Decision Date | 18 October 1989 |
Docket Number | No. A89A1509,A89A1509 |
Citation | 387 S.E.2d 437,193 Ga.App. 242 |
Parties | CHANCE v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Stephen E. Curry, Augusta, for appellant.
Robert W. Hunter III, Sol. and Carl P. Dowling, Asst. Sol., for appellee.
After a bench trial, appellant was found guilty of improper lane usage and of driving under the influence in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(1). He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered on the trial court's findings of guilt and from the denial of his motion for new trial.
1. Over objection, law enforcement officers were permitted to testify that, based upon their personal observations, it was their opinions that appellant was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was rendered a less safe driver. The trial court's refusal to sustain the objections to this opinion testimony is enumerated as error.
Although appellant concedes that it was permissible to allow the officers to testify to opinions that he was intoxicated, he urges that it was error to allow the officers to testify to opinions that the extent of his intoxication was such as to render him a less safe driver. It is clear, however, that (Emphasis supplied.) Lawrence v. State, 157 Ga.App. 264(2), 277 S.E.2d 60 (1981). Appellant's further contention that testimony concerning the extent of his intoxication would be inadmissible as the expression of an opinion on the ultimate issue has likewise previously been rejected. See Fisher v. State, 177 Ga.App. 465(1), 339 S.E.2d 744 (1986). The trial court did not err in allowing the officers' opinions into evidence.
2. On October 24, 1988, appellant and his counsel signed a written waiver of the right to trial by jury. The case was specially set for trial on October 28, 1988. After the case was called for trial and the rule of sequestration had been invoked by appellant, the trial court heard and denied appellant's motion in limine. Only after the adverse ruling on his motion in limine did appellant seek to withdraw his waiver of jury trial. The State opposed the withdrawal. The trial court refused to allow appellant to withdraw his waiver of jury trial, finding that the case Appellant enumerates as error the refusal to allow him to withdraw his waiver of jury trial.
" ' ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brent v. State
...opportunity to observe the condition of another may testify whether that person was under the influence of alcohol. Chance v. State, 193 Ga.App. 242, 387 S.E.2d 437 (1989), citing Lawrence v. State, 157 Ga.App. 264, 277 S.E.2d 60 (1981). Furthermore, the officer may testify as to his opinio......
-
Lewis v. State
...to drive. Church v. State, 210 Ga.App. 670, 436 S.E.2d 809; Grant v. State, 195 Ga.App. 463, 464(1), 393 S.E.2d 737; Chance v. State, 193 Ga.App. 242, 387 S.E.2d 437; compare McFarland v. State, 210 Ga.App. 426, 436 S.E.2d 541. Whether a police officer qualifies as an expert for such purpos......
-
Lanning v. State, A03A0329.
...to decide the ultimate issue in the case. Lanning's arguments in this regard were decided adversely to him in Chance v. State, 193 Ga.App. 242(1), 387 S.E.2d 437 (1989). See also Driver v. State, 240 Ga.App. 513, 515, 523 S.E.2d 919 (1999) (a court in its discretion may allow a trained and ......
-
Karafiat v. State
...645 S.E.2d 529 (2007) (footnotes omitted). 6. Lanning v. State, 261 Ga.App. 480, 482-483(3), 583 S.E.2d 160 (2003); Chance v. State, 193 Ga.App. 242(1), 387 S.E.2d 437 (1989). 7. See Fults v. State, 274 Ga. 82, 87(7), 548 S.E.2d 315 (2001) (failure to make meritless objection is not evidenc......