Rice v. State, 37481
| Decision Date | 13 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 37481,37481,2 |
| Citation | 107 S.E.2d 270,98 Ga.App. 803 |
| Parties | G. A. RICE v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
syllabus by the Court.
1. There is ample evidence to show that the defendant was sufficiently under the influence of intoxicants to be less able to operate a motor vehicle than without such intoxicants.
2. when testifying as to whether or not a defendant is intoxicated, a witness may properly state facts, upon which his or her opinion is based, and may state whether or not the defendant was intoxicated and the extent thereof, if the witness had an opportunity to observe the condition or acts of the defendant.
3. When police officers observed a defendant thirty minutes after the alleged drunken driving and found him in such condition that he was then less capable of driving than he would have been without the intoxicants, and where the officers testified that it was their opinion that the same condition existed thirty minutes previously (that is that thirty minutes previous thereto the defendant was too intoxicated to drive as safely as he would have been had he not been drinking), said testimony is admissible to show that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicants and incapable of operating a motor vehicle as safely as if he had been sober.
George A. Rice was convicted in the City Court of Savannah on the charge of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $150 or serve six months on the public works. His motion for new trial on the general grounds was later amended by adding special grounds. The court denied the amended motion, and the defendant excepts.
The evidence shows substantially: Mrs. Athlee Crosby, a City of Savannah School Guard, testified that she was on duty at about 3:40 p.m. May 30, 1958, at the school crossing at Habersham and 49th Streets when she observed the defendant drive his blue Plymouth car to the center of Habersham Street facing south, get out on the driver's side leaving his car on the white center line and go up a driveway towards a garage apartment; that 'he acted very drunk'; that she had a police officer called; that before Officer Carter came the defendant returned to his car, 'staggering as before,' and drove it over to the curb, got a package out of the car and returned to the house in the same manner, staggering; that she was about 20 feet from him on both occasions; that based on past observations of persons who were under the influence she would say the defendant was under the influence of liquor and in her opinion it was less safe for him to operate an automobile than if he had been sober. On cross-examination the witness testified that she was positive the defendant was alone in his car; that after he left the car in the middle of the street approximately ten minutes elapsed before he returned and moved the car to the curb; that the police came within ten or fifteen minutes after that; that from 20 feet away she could not 'smell anything on him,' and that she was unable to testify under oath that the defendant was 'under the influence of intoxicating liquors' or that he 'was not ill or under some sedative to cause him to react the way that did.'
Officer B. R. Carter testified that he answered Mrs. Crosby's call and was directed to an apartment house; that no one answered the door; that he get the defendant's tag number in order to get a full registration; that he called in additional officers, went back to the apartment and got in; that the defendant 'looked awfully drunk' and when he mentioned his 'driving under the influence' the defendant jumped up and said, 'I'ii have your job for this' whereupon the defendant put in telephone calls for Chief of Police Barnes, City Manager Jacocks or Mayor Mingledorff and finally called Sheriff Harris and talked with him and afterwards told the witness that Sheriff Harris had advised him to order the witness out of his house. The witness further stated that in his opinion the defendant was very drunk and by virtue of this condition it was less safe for him to operate an automobile than if he had been sober.
On cross-examination the same witness testified that no one answered his knocking on the door the first time; that when he came back the second time he shook the screen door; that it came open and he knocked on the inner door and it came open; that the defendant's wife came to the door and said, 'Come on in,' whereupon the witness put one foot inside the door and waited for his partner to arrive; that he and the other officers then arrested the defendant, took him down the steps because he was unable to walk and placed him in the wagon; that when they arrested the defendant they did not serve him with an arrest warrant.
On redirect examination the same witness testified that about fifteen minutes elapsed between the time he arrived at the scene and the time he talked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephens v. State, 47286
...rule in DUI cases. Franklin v. State, 51 Ga.App. 98, 179 S.E. 649; Brown v. State, 98 Ga.App. 350, 105 S.E.2d 785; Rice v. State, 98 Ga.App. 803, 107 S.E.2d 270; Echols v. State, 104 Ga.App. 695, 122 S.E.2d 473; Horne v. State, 105 Ga.App. 214, 124 S.E.2d 319; Palmer v. State, 109 Ga.App. 1......
-
Wells v. State, 40923
...786, 72 S.E.2d 502; Fowler v. State, 82 Ga.App. 197, 60 S.E.2d 473; Harris v. State, 97 Ga.App. 495, 103 S.E.2d 443; Rice v. State, 98 Ga.App. 803, 107 S.E.2d 270. 4. Two police officers, witnesses for the State, testified that the defendant 'scratched off' at a traffic intersection and dro......
-
Bryant v. State
...half-pint liquor bottles in the automobile. This evidence is sufficient upon which to predicate a guilty verdict. See Rice v. State, 98 Ga.App. 803, 107 S.E.2d 270; Parker v. State, 53 Ga.App. 344, 185 S.E. 3. 'In the trial of such a case, evidence tending to show that the operator of the v......
-
Holder v. State
...of this condition his ability to drive was shown to be less safe than his ability to drive without the intoxicants. See Rice v. State, 98 Ga.App. 803, 107 S.E.2d 270, and Bennett v. State, Ga.App., 110 S.E.2d The trial court did not err in overruling the certiorari of the defendant. Judgmen......