Rylee v. State, A93A1214
| Decision Date | 17 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A1214,A93A1214 |
| Citation | 436 S.E.2d 52,210 Ga.App. 314 |
| Parties | RYLEE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Donna L. Avans, Jefferson, for appellant.
Donald E. Moore, Sol., for appellee.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of driving while under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe for him to drive. (OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(1).) He appeals following the denial of his motion for new trial.
Trooper Melvin Dukes of the Georgia State Patrol testified that in May 1991 he stopped defendant's pickup truck because of a cracked windshield and an obscured license tag. When Dukes approached the defendant's window to ask for his license and proof of insurance, he detected the odor of alcohol. Defendant appeared nervous, his face was flushed and his eyes were bloodshot. When Dukes asked defendant if he had been drinking, defendant admitted that he had just finished a can of beer. Dukes then administered three field sobriety tests--a one-legged stand test, a horizontal-gaze nystagmus test and an alcosensor test--and determined that defendant was unsteady on his feet, that his eye movement was jerky and that alcohol was present in his breath. Based on his training and experience, Dukes concluded that defendant had consumed alcohol to the point that he was a less safe driver than he would have been had he not consumed the alcohol. Thirty-six minutes after defendant's arrest, an intoximeter test showed a blood-alcohol level of .10 grams. Six minutes later, a second test requested by defendant showed a level of .09. In his defense, defendant testified that his eyes may have been bloodshot and his face may have been flushed because he had been exposed to paint fumes in a body shop for several hours earlier that day and that he was unsteady on his feet due to arthritis. He acknowledged that he had two beers in the hour or so before his arrest, including the one he finished just before Trooper Dukes stopped him, but he insisted that the beers did not make him a less safe driver.
In his sole enumeration of error, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. However, this court has rejected challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in similar cases in which the initial stop of the defendant was not for unsafe driving. See Hurd v. State, 201 Ga.App. 373, 411 S.E.2d 111 (1991) (); Campbell v. State, 189 Ga.App. 303, 375 S.E.2d 654 (1988) (); see also Moss v. State, 194 Ga.App. 181, 390 S.E.2d 268 (1990) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Al-Beti v. State
-
Walton v. State, A94A2061
...the extent that it was less safe for him to drive. Anthony v. State, 211 Ga.App. 622, 623(1), 441 S.E.2d 70 (1993); Rylee v. State, 210 Ga.App. 314, 436 S.E.2d 52 (1993). It follows that, contrary to defendant's first enumeration of error, the probate court did not err in denying defendant'......
-
Price v. State, A96A1927
...committing a traffic violation is without merit. See Anthony v. State, 211 Ga.App. 622, 623(1), 441 S.E.2d 70 (1993); Rylee v. State, 210 Ga.App. 314, 436 S.E.2d 52 (1993). Judgment McMURRAY, P.J., and RUFFIN, J., concur. ...
-
Sieveking v. State
...Ga.App. 482, 483(2), 458 S.E.2d 159 (1995); In the Interest of C.P.M., 213 Ga.App. 761, 763, 446 S.E.2d 242 (1994); Rylee v. State, 210 Ga.App. 314, 315, 436 S.E.2d 52 (1993). Mere presence of alcohol is not the issue; the quantity is needed because the issue is effect. To illustrate, if a ......