 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ponder v. State6/29/2005
o the extent that it was less safe for him to drive. OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (2). Ponder argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proof as to this charge because the State's expert witness, a toxicologist, testified in general terms regarding the effects of marijuana and did not specifically testify that Ponder was a less safe driver based on his ingestion of marijuana. While it is true that the mere fact that a defendant has ingested marijuana is not sufficient to support a conviction under OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (2), evidence of erratic driving coupled with evidence showing the presence of marijuana in the defendant's system is sufficient. Gilbert v. State, 262 Ga. 840, 840-841 (1) (426 SE2d 155) (1993).
The record in this case is replete with evidence of Ponder's erratic driving. Ponder drove his vehicle over 80 miles per hour, ran several stop signs and traffic lights, struck two vehicles and attempted to strike another. This evidence taken together with scientific evidence revealing the presence of marijuana in Ponder's system was more than sufficient to establish Ponder's guilt of driving under the influence of marijuana to the extent that he was a less safe driver. Any rational trier of fact could have found Ponder guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of driving under the influence of marijuana to the extent he was a less safe driver. Jackson v. Virginia, supra; Gilbert v. State, supra.
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.
|
|