 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Evans v. State5/25/2004
ations, law enforcement officers are not obliged to offer impound alternatives to those they place under arrest. The circumstances of this case support a finding that impoundment was reasonably necessary to safeguard the car and its contents. [FN12]
FN12. Scott v. State, 232 Ga.App. 337, 339, 501 S.E.2d 255 (1998).
4. We find the State complied with the requirements for the admission of the GCIC report as established by OCGA § 24-3-17 and our decision in Worthy v. State. [FN13] Accordingly, Evans' challenge to the *709 admission of the report is without merit. Evans also argues that the GCIC record was never shown to be hers; however, "[c]oncordance of name alone is some evidence of identity. Identity of name presumptively imports identity of person, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary." [FN14] Here, the GCIC printout bore Evans' name, and she did not deny that it was hers. Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient to show identity for purposes of the admission of the GCIC printout.**675 [ FN15]
FN13. Worthy v. State, 252 Ga.App. 852, 853(1), 557 S.E.2d 448 (2001).
FN14. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gibson v. State, 243 Ga.App. 610, 612(2)(b), 533 S.E.2d 783 (2000). See also OCGA § 24-4- 40(a).
FN15. Evans' additional argument raised in a "Supplemental Reply Brief" will not be considered. Felix v. State, 271 Ga. 534, 539, n. 6, 523 S.E.2d 1 (1999).
Judgment affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|