 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pitts v. State1/18/2002
act or omission." (Punctuation omitted.) Johnson v. State, 170 Ga. App. 433, 434 (1) (317 SE2d 213) (1984). It is not sufficient to show that the defendant only contributed to the cause the injury. See, e.g., Edmonds v. State, 98 Ga. App. 827 (1) (107 SE2d 286) (1959).
The trial court clearly charged the jury that in order to convict, they had to find that Pitts' actions were the "direct and proximate cause of the death. . . ." and that they were obligated to acquit Pitts if they found that Warren's actions and not Pitts' caused the victim's death. The jury resolved this factual question against Pitts. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Pitts' actions of eluding an officer at high speed in a reckless manner with a baby in his truck played a substantial part in bringing about the child's death, and that the death was a reasonably probable consequence of Pitts' actions.
2. Pitts also asserts that he was innocent because he was speeding to get medical attention for his child and that he did not see Warren trying to pull him over. But Pitts gave conflicting testimony about where he was going, why he was in a hurry, and why he was driving fast and recklessly. The jury also saw the tape of the chase, which reveals how much opportunity Pitts had to see Warren behind him and to stop. The jury determines credibility and resolves conflicts in the evidence; this Court does not weigh the evidence but only determines its legal sufficiency. Battles v. State, 205 Ga. App. 510, 511-12 (422 SE2d 672) (1992). We find no error.
3. Pitts asserts that because tests of his blood did not reveal the presence of any controlled substance, he cannot be convicted of driving under the influence of drugs under OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (6). However, that code section prohibits driving with any amount of marijuana or controlled substance in the blood or urine, and Pitts had both marijuana and methamphetamine, a controlled substance, in his urine.
The evidence was sufficient to support all the charges for which Pitts was convicted.
Judgment affirmed.
Blackburn, C. J., and Mikell, J., concur.
|