Goddard v. State, A99A1858.
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | ANDREWS, Presiding. |
| Citation | 242 Ga. App. 154,529 S.E.2d 184 |
| Parties | GODDARD v. The STATE. |
| Docket Number | No. A99A1858.,A99A1858. |
| Decision Date | 01 February 2000 |
529 S.E.2d 184
242 Ga. App. 154
v.
The STATE
No. A99A1858.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
February 1, 2000.
Richard B. Read, District Attorney, Robert G. Mikell, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
ANDREWS, Presiding Judge.
David Anthony Goddard appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of DUI. Goddard claims the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and also that the trial court erred in refusing to give his request to charge on the definition of "alcohol concentration." We find no error and affirm.
The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to support the jury's verdict, was as follows. The arresting officer testified that he first noticed Goddard because he was speeding. The officer turned around to catch up to Goddard and, when he was pulling up behind him, saw that Goddard was weaving across the roadway. The officer said that at one point Goddard was driving with his car straddling the double yellow line.
The officer pulled Goddard over and, when he walked up to the car, noticed a strong odor of alcohol. Goddard first told the officer he had not had anything to drink but later admitted to having three beers. Goddard tested positive for alcohol after blowing into the alco-sensor and the officer then asked him to perform several field sobriety tests. After watching him perform the field sobriety tests, the officer arrested Goddard for the traffic offenses and for DUI.
Goddard agreed to take a breath test, and the arresting officer administered the test, using the Intoxilyzer 5000. The first breath sample taken registered 0.067 grams percent, and the second sample registered 0.072 grams percent. The officer also testified that at the time of the arrest, Goddard was 20 years old.
At trial, the jury convicted Goddard of driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.02 grams or more when he was under the age of 21. This appeal followed.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the [defendant] no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence; moreover[,] an appellate court does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility but only determines whether the evidence is sufficient under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 [(1979)]. Howard v. State, 261 Ga. 251, 252, 403 S.E.2d 204 [(1991)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hale v. the State., No. A11A0327.
...and MIKELL, J., concur.--------Notes: FN1. See OCGA § 40–6–46(b). FN2. See OCGA § 40–6–391(a)(1). FN3. See, e.g., Goddard v. State, 242 Ga.App. 154, 154, 529 S.E.2d 184 (2000) (“[T]he evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the ......
-
Travis v. State, No. A11A1941.
...earlier in the day; and the state-administered breath test indicated blood alcohol levels of 0.037 and 0.036. See Goddard v. State, 242 Ga.App. 154, 154–155(1), 529 S.E.2d 184 (2000) (concluding evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for DUI when he was under the age of 2......
-
Hortman v. Guy, No. A99A2247.
...207. In Franklin County v. Fieldale Farms Corp., supra, the court held that a state statute regulating the application of sludge to 529 S.E.2d 184 land preempted a county land disposal ordinance. First, the court inferred that the state statute preempted local laws because its provisions an......
-
Corbett v. State, No. A05A1635.
...the totality of the evidence, we find that any rational trier of fact could find Corbett guilty of these two counts. Goddard v. State, 242 Ga.App. 154, 155(2), 529 S.E.2d 184 (2000); Banks v. State, 235 Ga. App. 701, 703(2), 509 S.E.2d 63 (1998); Burks v. State, 195 Ga.App. 516, 518(5), 394......
-
Hale v. the State., A11A0327.
...and MIKELL, J., concur.--------Notes: FN1. See OCGA § 40–6–46(b). FN2. See OCGA § 40–6–391(a)(1). FN3. See, e.g., Goddard v. State, 242 Ga.App. 154, 154, 529 S.E.2d 184 (2000) (“[T]he evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the ......
-
Travis v. State, A11A1941.
...earlier in the day; and the state-administered breath test indicated blood alcohol levels of 0.037 and 0.036. See Goddard v. State, 242 Ga.App. 154, 154–155(1), 529 S.E.2d 184 (2000) (concluding evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for DUI when he was under the age of 2......
-
Hortman v. Guy, A99A2247.
...207. In Franklin County v. Fieldale Farms Corp., supra, the court held that a state statute regulating the application of sludge to 529 S.E.2d 184 land preempted a county land disposal ordinance. First, the court inferred that the state statute preempted local laws because its provisions an......
-
Wilcox v. the State., A11A0569.
...S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). 3. The tool belt, saw, saw case, and hammer were never recovered. FN4. See, e.g., Goddard v. State, 242 Ga.App. 154, 154, 529 S.E.2d 184 (2000) (“[T]he evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys ......