 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moman v. City of Leeds6/18/1999
BR>
"In Alabama, there are two ways to prove that a person has been driving under the influence of alcohol. The first way is through direct evidence, such as the testimony of an eyewitness, normally the arresting officer. The second method is through the use of circumstantial evidence to prove that the person, although not actually seen driving the vehicle, had 'actual physical control' over it." Id. at 1145.
By extending the statute to include "shall not ... be in physical control of any vehicle while ... under the influence of alcohol," the Alabama legislature broadened the circumstances under which a person can be convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, we hold that § 32-5A-191, Ala. Code 1975, does not define two separate offenses and that, therefore, there was no violation of Rule 13.3, Ala.R.Crim.P.
For the above-stated reasons, the judgment of the trial court is due to be, and is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Long, P.J., and McMillan, Baschab, and Fry JJ., concur.
|