Potts v. State, A89A0255
| Decision Date | 17 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. A89A0255,A89A0255 |
| Parties | POTTS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William M. Warner, Atlanta, for appellant.
Ralph T. Bowden, Jr., Sol., Cliff Howard, N. Jackson Cotney, Jr., Asst. Sols. for appellee.
Robert Charles Potts appeals pro se from his conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol, asserting the general grounds.
1. The evidence showed that a DeKalb County police officer noted Potts' automobile weaving in the lane in which he was driving and almost striking another vehicle while driving on I-285. After the officer put on his siren he had to change its mode several times to get appellant's attention. When he approached the vehicle, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol about Potts, that his speech was slurred, and that he fumbled for his wallet. Potts staggered and nearly fell down when he got out of his car and could barely stand up unaided. The officer performed two sobriety tests on appellant: a horizontal gaze nystagmus and a pupil dilation test. The officer testified as to his training and experience in performing the tests and based on these factors, he believed the appellant to be under the influence of alcohol. He radioed for another officer to transport the accused to the police station because his vehicle was not equipped with a security screen. The second officer read Potts the implied consent warnings, but he refused to sign the implied consent form. He also refused to take a police-administered blood test and stated that he would take a urine test. When asked to take this test he claimed that he did not need to urinate. He requested a breath test several times, but was advised that he had to submit to the test of the officer's choice before he could receive the test of his choice. Potts claimed that he was afraid to take a blood test administered by the police station because of his fear of contacting AIDS. He never took the urine test. The second officer testified that basis of his experience and training he believed that appellant was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was a less safe driver.
Appellant argues that the officer's testimony that he was intoxicated usurped the function of the trier of fact. This argument is without merit because the evidence showed that the opinion was based upon the officer's experience and observations. There was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant v. State
...no error occurred in the admission of such evidence. Compare Chance v. State, 193 Ga.App. 242(1), 387 S.E.2d 437 with Potts v. State, 191 Ga.App. 75(1), 381 S.E.2d 99 and House v. State, 184 Ga.App. 724(2), 362 S.E.2d On appeal the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the ve......
-
Hayes v. State
...the collision. Since the testimony was based on the officer's observations and experience, it was not improper. See Potts v. State, 191 Ga.App. 75(1), 381 S.E.2d 99 (1989). Contrary to defendant's assertions, this case is not governed by Nichols v. State, 177 Ga.App. 689(2), 340 S.E.2d 654 ......
-
Leigner v. State
...Tyson's opinion was based on his experience and observations. Hayes v. State, 208 Ga.App. 627(1), 431 S.E.2d 430; Potts v. State, 191 Ga.App. 75(1), 76, 381 S.E.2d 99. 3. In his final enumeration, defendant contends the trial court erred in charging that jury as follows: "A witness may test......
-
Clay v. State, A89A1984
...of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe for him to drive was without evidentiary foundation. Compare, e.g., Potts v. State, 191 Ga.App. 75, 381 S.E.2d 99 (1989) (where the defendant's speech was slurred, he was staggering to the point where he could barely stand up, and he failed two......