 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Overton v. State11/1/2004
ly, the evidence derived from the roadblock would have been properly admitted even if Overton had imposed a proper objection. Hardin v. State, 277 Ga. 242, 244(3), 587 S.E.2d 634 (2003).
4. Overton's allegation that the trial court erred by allowing the State to reopen its case after the State had rested and Overton made his motion for a directed verdict is also without merit. Whether to reopen the evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a trial court's ruling in this regard will only be reversed, if in the totality of the circumstances, the record on appeal demonstrate that the court abused its discretion. Bramblett v. State, 259 Ga.App. 427, 429(1), 577 S.E.2d 100 (2003). Considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Bryan v. State, 168 Ga.App. 711(1), 310 S.E.2d 533 (1983).
5. Finally, Overton contends his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(1) should be reversed because no rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence presented that he was a less safe driver. As Overton's challenge is based on the sufficiency of the evidence, we employ the test established in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Humphrey v. State, supra, 252 Ga. at 527(1), 314 S.E.2d 436.
*6 We first note that the State was not required to prove that Overton committed an unsafe act to prove that he violated OCGA § 40-6- 391(a)(1). Apperson v. State, 225 Ga.App. 804, 805(2), 484 S.E.2d 739 (1997). The State need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Overton was under the influence of alcohol to the degree that rendered him a less safe driver. See Peters v. State, 175 Ga.App. 463, 464(1), 333 S.E.2d 436 (1985), overruled on other grounds, Hogan v. State, 178 Ga.App. 534, 535, 343 S.E.2d 770 (1986).
Here, the trooper testified that in his opinion Overton was a less safe driver even though he did not see Overton commit any traffic violations or any unsafe acts and even though Overton was polite, his speech was not slurred, and he was not unsteady on his feet. Because the trooper had the opportunity to observe Overton's condition he was competent to state his opinion that Overton was a less safe driver. Brent v. State, 270 Ga. 160, 162-163(3), 510 S.E.2d 14 (1998). Additionally, the GBI forensic chemist called by the defense testified on cross-examination that a person with a .11 blood alcohol level, as Overton did in this case, would have a 50 percent loss of reaction time. and would show difficulty performing the fine motor skill tasks necessary to drive. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Overton was a less safe driver.
Therefore, having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's determination, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Overton guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, supra; Brent v. State, supra, 270 Ga. at 161, 510 S.E.2d 14.
Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|