 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. LePard12/8/1989
l boat. McQuiston stated that, after seeing the flashing blue light, he called appellant and appellant came up on deck and "jumped in the [driver's] seat." Stating that he put the boat in neutral, McQuiston acknowledged that the boat was still moving forward, when appellant assumed the driver's seat.
Despite appellant's interpretation of this testimony, we find that it merely establishes how appellant assumed physical control of the watercraft rather than bearing on the issue of his guilt or innocence. Appellant, by his own admission, was at the helm when the patrol boat illuminated his boat with a spotlight and when the officers pulled alongside. We find that this evidence, combined with the testimony of the arresting officers, provided a basis upon which the jury could have concluded that appellant performed acts constituting operation of the watercraft within the intent of the statute.
For the aforestated reasons, we find appellant's second assignment of error not well-taken.
On consideration whereof, the court finds that appellant was not prej-
udiced or prevented from having a fair trial, and the judgment of the Port Clinton Municipal Court is affirmed. This cause is remanded to said court for execution of sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
HANDWORK, P.J., and CONNORS, J., concur.
|