 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pecina v. State10/22/2001
e in these requests is found in Clay v. State, 193 Ga. App. 377, 379 (387 SE2d 644) (1989), " ven though language used by the appellate courts in a decision may embody sound law, it is not always appropriate to employ such language in instructing the jury." Stull v. State, 230 Ga. 99, 104 (4) (196 SE2d 7) (1973). Here the requested charges come from an appellate opinion reversing a conviction on insufficiency of the evidence. As such, they were comments on the specific evidence in Clay, and inappropriate in this case.
6. Finally, Pecina contends that the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction on driving under the influence of alcohol. The challenged jury instruction is adjusted from the pattern charge found in Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II (Criminal Cases), 2d ed., rev. 1996, pp. 138-138a (T) (2) (a) (1). Contrary to Pecina's claim, the challenged instruction does not inform the jury that it may convict him of DUI based on the odor of alcohol alone, or unduly emphasize evidence of such an odor. In fact, the instruction specifically informs the jury that such an odor alone is insufficient evidence upon which to base a conviction.
Judgments affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Fletcher, C. J., who concurs in the judgment and in all Divisions except Division 4.
Page 1 2 3 4 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|