 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schoolfield v. State8/1/2001
A Clayton County jury convicted defendant Loyd C. Schoolfield of one count of driving under the influence to the extent it was less safe for him to drive (Count 1) and one count of driving a moving vehicle while his alcohol concentration was more than 0.10 grams (Count 2), a per se violation. He was sentenced to confinement for 12 months, to serve two days, and the remainder probated; a $600 fine; and 80 hours community service. On appeal, the defendant contends the state court erred in denying his motion for new trial as amended, challenging the testimony of the arresting officer as going to the ultimate issue, the state's similar transaction evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding defendant's claims of error to be without merit, we affirm.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, Green v. State, 244 Ga. App. 565 (1) (536 SE2d 240) (2000), the evidence shows that at 10:30 p.m. on September 9, 1999, Officer John P. Crolle was dispatched to a Clayton County gas station upon a report of a suspicious vehicle in its parking lot. There, Officer Crolle found the defendant "passed out or asleep" behind the wheel of a parked vehicle outside the gas station. Officer Crolle testified that the vehicle was running; that the vehicle smelled of vomit and alcohol; that the defendant had vomit in his hair and on his clothing, was disheveled, and had urinated on himself; and that the defendant told him that he had been sick when asked for an explanation as to why he had stopped the vehicle as he had. The defendant tested poorly on the field sobriety tests that Officer Crolle administered on the scene, inclusive of an alco-sensor test confirming the presence of alcohol in the defendant's system. On this, Officer Crolle took the defendant into custody.
Through counsel at trial, the defendant stipulated to a state-administered blood-alcohol test which showed that his blood-alcohol content was .18. On direct, the defendant also admitted that he pled guilty to the State's 1997 similar transaction evidence, a conviction for DUI arising out of circumstances in which he was stopped for speeding and cutting the arresting officer off in traffic. The defendant, however, denied having been the driver in the instant case, testifying that his girlfriend drove him to the gas station where he was found; that they fought; that she left him in the vehicle with the engine running; and that he shifted to the driver's seat thereafter. The defendant's girlfriend and another witness corroborated this testimony.
1.
The defendant first contends that the state court erred in allowing State's witness, Officer Crolle, to give his opinion as to the "ultimate issue" in the case, i.e., that "a person is in control of a moving vehicle when [the individual] is on the driver's side of a car with the motor running."
The record reflects that defendant's counsel moved for a mistrial or a curative instruction after Officer Crolle's testified on direct as follows:
[State's attorney]: Now, back to the original point when you arrested him. We all know why you might arrest somebody that you see for weaving over the lanes and turns out to be drunk. Why did you arrest this defendant for driving under the influence ?
[Officer Crolle]: "In the State of Georgia, being in physical control of the vehicle qualifies. The car was running. He had -
The state court denied the motion for mistrial but gave this curative instruction:
Ladies and gentlemen, it is important that you realize that the law applies to this particular case, as in any case, comes from the Court. It does not come from any witness that you might hear from throughout t
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|