Merrell v. State, A89A1154
| Decision Date | 22 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. A89A1154,A89A1154 |
| Citation | 383 S.E.2d 905,192 Ga.App. 100 |
| Parties | MERRELL v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Roger E. Bradley, Blue Ridge, for appellant.
Roger G. Queen, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant was convicted of "the offense of habitual violator" and the offense of driving under the influence (of alcohol). Via three enumerations of error, he asserts the general grounds and the impropriety of an evidentiary ruling. Held:
1. In his first and second enumerations of error, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. In this regard, he contends the State failed to prove that he operated a motor vehicle at all since the arresting officer testified that he found defendant behind the wheel of a vehicle which had run out of gas. This contention is without merit. The officer also testified that he saw defendant driving the vehicle (less than 10 feet from where the officer was standing) shortly before it ran out of gas.
The evidence demonstrated that defendant operated a motor vehicle after receiving notice of the revocation of his license and his status as an habitual violator. It also demonstrated that at the scene defendant smelled of alcohol, his eyes were red, his speech was slurred and he was unsteady on his feet. (Defendant refused a blood alcohol test so no evidence concerning his blood alcohol content was presented.) The evidence presented by the State was sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty of "habitual violator" and driving under the influence beyond a reasonable doubt. Miller v. State, 156 Ga.App. 125, 274 S.E.2d 122; Brooks v. State, 187 Ga.App. 194(1), 369 S.E.2d 801.
2. Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence six prior "habitual violator convictions" (from December 1982 through October 1986). This evidence was admitted to show defendant's bent of mind and course of conduct with regard to the habitual violator count and the trial court instructed the jury that the evidence was being admitted for that limited purpose. We find no error. Sultenfuss v. State, 185 Ga.App. 47, 48(2), 363 S.E.2d 337. Compare Hester v. State, 159 Ga.App. 642, 643(2), 284 S.E.2d 659.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. State
...verdict but also to support the jury verdict. See Mendoza v. State, 196 Ga.App. 627, 396 S.E.2d 576, supra; Merrell v. State, 192 Ga.App. 100, 101(1), 383 S.E.2d 905 (1989). In an "appeal of a criminal conviction, the evidence is to be viewed 'in the light most favorable to the prosecution'......
-
Mendoza v. State, A90A0080
...was such that a rational trier of fact could have found proof of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Merrell v. State, 192 Ga.App. 100, 101(1), 383 S.E.2d 905 (1989). 3. Defendant assigns error in the exclusion of the specific quantitative result of his alco-sensor test, which was ......
-
Duncan v. State
...that it was less safe for him to drive. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Merrell v. State, 192 Ga.App. 100(1), 383 S.E.2d 905 (1989). 3. In his third enumeration of error, Duncan contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction ......
-
People v. Mersman, No. 04CA0414.
...sufficient where defendant smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and refused to submit to field sobriety tests); Merrell v. State, 192 Ga.App. 100, 383 S.E.2d 905 (1989) (evidence sufficient where defendant exhibited smell of alcohol, red eyes, slurred speech, and unsteadiness on his feet......