Duckett v. State
| Decision Date | 16 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 40318,40318,2 |
| Citation | 108 Ga.App. 317,132 S.E.2d 811 |
| Parties | J. W. DUCKETT v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
A conviction of operating or driving a vehicle under the influence of intoxicants is authorized where it is shown that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquors and guided an automobile down a street, although the original force which set such vehicle in motion was from an outside source and the engine on such vehicle was not running at the time.
The defendant was convicted on both counts of a two-count indictment. The first count charged him with operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants and the second with operating a motor vehicle without possessing an operator's license. Thereafter the trial court overruled his motion for new trial, based on the usual general grounds only, and error is now assigned on such adverse judgment.
Wm. H. Burke, Marietta, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
The evidence adduced showed that the automobile had stalled in traffic and at an intersection and would not start, and that some ten or twelve people then pushed the automobile around the corner where it continued to roll, with the defendant guiding, down the street until it stopped in a parking lot. While there was no evidence adduced that the defendant had been driving when the automobile stalled, there was evidence of the defendant's intoxicated condition as well as his failure to possess an operator's license. The sole question for decision is whether evidence that an automobile started in motion from outside force when continued to be operated after such force is removed is operated or driven so as to render one guiding such vehicle guilty of violating Code Ann. § 68-1625 if he is under the influence of intoxicants at the time.
In Harris v. State, 97 Ga.App. 495, 103 S.E.2d 443, it was held that one under the influence of intoxicants who guides an automobile vehicle, unable to move under its own power, down a street is guilty of violating Code Ann. § 68-1625, supra, and under such decision the verdict of guilty was authorized in the present case and the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial based on the usual general grounds only.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jordan
...e. g. Walker v. State (1966) 241 Ark. 396, 408 S.W.2d 474; Harris v. State (1958) 97 Ga.App. 495, 103 S.E.2d 443; Duckett v. State (1963) 108 Ga.App. 317, 132 S.E.2d 811; Hester v. State (1954) 196 Tenn. 680, 270 S.W.2d 321, 47 A.L.R.2d 568; Rogers v. State (1944) 147 Tex.Cr. 602, 183 S.W.2......
-
State v. Switchenko
...204 A.2d 838; and State v. Plourde, 3 Conn.Cir. 465, 217 A.2d 423. See State v. Sweeney, 40 N.J. 359, 192 A.2d 573; Duckett v. State, 108 Ga.App. 317, 132 S.E.2d 811; 61 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 628; 7 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 256; note, 47 A.L.R.2d 570, The defendant's ......
-
Roberts v. State
... ... The jury did not believe the defendant's testimony as opposed to that of the State's witnesses, if this would make any difference. The weight and credit of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses was for the jury to determine. See Duckett v. State, 108 Ga.App. 317, 132 ... S.E.2d 811; Lewis v. State, 149 Ga.App. 181, 254 S.E.2d 142; Stewart v. State, 165 Ga.App. 62, 299 S.E.2d 134; Fuller v. State, 166 Ga.App. 734, 305 S.E.2d 463. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss contending the State ... ...
-
Moody v. Williams
...automobiles have uniformly held that they do. Arellano v. Moreno, 33 Cal.App.3d 877, 109 Cal.Rptr. 421 (1973); Duckett v. State, 108 Ga.App. 317, 132 S.E.2d 811 (1963); State v. Lansing, 108 Vt. 218, 184 A. 692 (1936). See also People v. Jordan, 75 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 142 Cal.Rptr. 401 (197......