Hobbs v. State
| Decision Date | 22 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. A96A1918,A96A1918 |
| Citation | 224 Ga.App. 314,480 S.E.2d 330 |
| Parties | , 97 FCDR 328 HOBBS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Lee Sexton, Jonesboro, for appellant.
William T. McBroom, III, District Attorney, James E. Hardin, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Aubrey Clifton Hobbs, Jr. appeals his convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. Held:
1. Hobbs contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Although Hobbs argues that the evidence showed he was not driving when he was stopped by the police, the arresting officer testified that he saw Hobbs driving the car. Further, notwithstanding the exclusion of the results of the Intoximeter 3000, see Division 2 below, the testimony from the police officer regarding Hobbs' ability to drive safely is sufficient to establish Hobbs' guilt. On appeal we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, Hobbs no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and this Court neither determines the sufficiency of the evidence, weighs the evidence, nor judges the witnesses' credibility. Grant v. State, 195 Ga.App. 463, 393 S.E.2d 737. Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Hobbs guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560; Crawford v. State, 245 Ga. 89, 90, 263 S.E.2d 131.
2. Hobbs also contends the trial court erred by denying his motion in limine seeking to exclude the results of the Intoximeter 3000 because the test violated OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(1) as the test was conducted on a machine that was operated without all the parts prescribed by the manufacturer. As there is no dispute that the machine did not have all those parts, this case is controlled by our decisions in State v. Kampplain, 223 Ga.App. 16, 17-19, 477 S.E.2d 143 and State v. Hunter, 221 Ga.App. 837, 838, 473 S.E.2d 192. Although it is true that this test was conducted before this version of OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(1) was passed, the terms of the statute made this provision applicable to cases pending when the Act was approved by the Governor. Because this case was pending on that date, the provisions of the Code section apply even though it was impossible for the police to have complied with them. Nevertheless, we must follow the plain language of the statute. State v. Hunter, supra. Accordingly, Hobbs' convictions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaston v. State
...proving a DUI offense by other admissible evidence." State v. Kampplain, 223 Ga.App. 16, 19, 477 S.E.2d 143 (1996); Hobbs v. State, 224 Ga.App. 314, 480 S.E.2d 330 (1997). The "other admissible evidence" that may satisfy the requisites of OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(1)(A) is the live testimony of an......
- Nunn v. State
-
Caldwell v. State
...properly, proof of this fact may thus also be established by other evidence. Id. at 744, 484 S.E.2d 673. Compare Hobbs v. State, 224 Ga.App. 314(2), 480 S.E.2d 330 (1997); Cullen v. State, 223 Ga.App. 356, 357(2), 477 S.E.2d 620 (1996); State v. Kampplain, 223 Ga.App. 16, 477 S.E.2d 143 (19......
-
Bazemore v. State
...any testing instruments, and to issue certificates certifying that instruments have met those requirements." We find Hobbs v. State, 224 Ga.App. 314, 480 S.E.2d 330; Cullen v. State, 223 Ga.App. 356, 477 S.E.2d 620; State v. Kampplain, 223 Ga.App. 16, 477 S.E.2d 143; and State v. Hunter, 22......