Turner v. State
| Decision Date | 18 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 36575,No. 2,36575,2 |
| Citation | 97 S.E.2d 348,95 Ga.App. 157 |
| Parties | Ray C. TURNER v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Earl Staples, R. J. Brown, Carrollton, for plaintiff in error.
William J. Wiggins, Sol., Carrollton, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was convicted in the City Court of Carrollton upon an accusation charging him with operating an automobile upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquors and drugs. The evidence as to intoxication is that an arresting officer stated: Another officer testified that the defendant was drinking about an hour after he was first accosted. There was evidence from companions who were in the car with the defendant that the defendant was not drinking and had had no intoxicating drinks of any kind. The defendant stated that he was not drinking. There was no evidence as to the manner in which the defendant was driving.
The true test of the basis of conviction of driving while under the influence of intoxicants, within the meaning of Code, § 68-1625 is when it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that it is less safe for such person to operate a motor vehicle than it would be if he were not so affected. The manner of driving may be taken into account when there is evidence that defendant has been drinking. In the instant case, it is not shown whether or not it was less safe for the defendant to operate the car than it would have been without the alleged intoxicants. See Harper v. State, 91 Ga.App. 456, 86 S.E.2d 7. There are many other decisions to the same effect. The evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.
The only special ground assigns error in that the court admitted evidence with reference to the odor of alcohol being on the defendant's breath some hour or an hour and a half after he was arrested. Under the facts of this case we hold that this is not reversible error, because such is only a circumstance regarding the intoxication of the defendant.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. State
...him a less safe driver. We agree. "[T]he trial court should have so defined the term, 'under the influence.' See Turner v. State, 95 Ga.App. 157, 158 (97 SE2d 348) (1957). See also Smitherman v. State, 157 Ga.App. 526 (278 SE2d 107) (1981); and Anderson v. State, 226 Ga. 35 (172 SE2d 424) (......
-
Cook v. State
...he were not so affected. Harper v. State, 91 Ga.App. 456(2), 86 S.E.2d 7; Sims v. State, 92 Ga.App. 169, 88 S.E.2d 186; Turner v. State, 95 Ga.App. 157, 97 S.E.2d 348; Bartley v. State, 95 Ga.App. 422, 98 S.E.2d 110; Hardrick v. State, 96 Ga.App. 670(2), 101 S.E.2d 99; Flanders v. State, 97......
-
Smith v. State, A91A2232
...822, cited by appellant, is distinguishable and not controlling. Likewise appellee's reliance on the language of Turner v. State, 95 Ga.App. 157, 158, 97 S.E.2d 348 is misplaced. Although the language used in an appellate court decision may embody sound principles of law, it is not always a......
-
Sparks v. State, A90A0221
...is not sufficient to convict appellant of driving under the influence in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(2). See Turner v. State, 95 Ga.App. 157, 97 S.E.2d 348 (1957); Clay v. State, 193 Ga.App. 377, 379(2), 387 S.E.2d 644 (1989). Therefore, the conviction and sentence for violation of OCGA......