 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alewine v. State5/31/2005
he evidence.
(Citation omitted.) Jackson v. State, 258 Ga. App. 806, 811 (5) (575 SE2d 713) (2002). Because there was no evidence of blood alcohol level in this case, the trial court did not err in refusing the requested charge.
(b) Alewine also contends that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury on his Request to Charge No. 7. That charge states:
While a witness may give an opinion as to whether a person was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe for him/her to drive, that opinion, if supported by sufficient evidentiary foundation, does not establish any fact as a matter of law and you the jury are not bound by that opinion.
Alewine contends that this charge was essential in order to ensure that the jury realized that it was not bound by the police officer's opinion that Alewine was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe for him to drive.
However, our review of the record reveals the trial court's general charge on the credibility of witnesses sufficiently instructed the jury that it was not bound by the testimony of any witness. "Where the charge given substantially covers the applicable principles, failure to give requested instructions in the exact language requested is not error." (Citation omitted.) Birge v. State, 143 Ga. App. 632, 639 (11) (239 SE2d 395) (1977).
(c) Finally, Alewine asserts that the trial should have given his Request to Charge No. 12, which reads:
The facts necessary to establish probable cause for arrest are much less than those required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
We disagree that such an instruction was warranted. A trial court is not required to charge the jury on a proposed instruction that is confusing or inappropriate. Buckalew v. State, 249 Ga. App. 134, 138 (5) (547 SE2d 355) (2001). Whether there is sufficient probable cause for an arrest is an issue for resolution by the trial court, not the jury. See Smith v. State, 265 Ga. App. 756, 758 (3) (596 SE2d 13) (2004). Thus, instructing the jury on probable cause would have risked confusing the jury on the burden of proof required for conviction. Lewis v. State, 214 Ga. App. 830, 833 (3) (449 SE2d 535) (1994). Furthermore, the trial court adequately instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and reasonable doubt. It follows that the trial court adequately covered the evidentiary principles underlying Alewine's requested charge, and, therefore, no reversible error occurred. See id.
Judgment affirmed. Blackburn, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|