Court Opinion

ID: 9845270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:18:10.614492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:58.217214
License: Public Domain

Eldridge, Judge,
concurring specially.
While I concur with the judgment of the majority, I disagree that there was no other evidence that the defendant was driving under the influence of drugs. The arresting officer testified that he observed that the defendant did “kind of have a prop” against the car as he *708approached the officer, that he was “sluggish, that he was under the influence —,” that he spoke with “slurred” speech, and that he “was fumbling through his wallet” looking for his license. The officer testified that the defendant failed the field sobriety tests. The officer also testified that he smelled marijuana emanating both from the defendant and the car and observed in plain view a “small marijuana joint known as a roach.” The defendant spontaneously made an admission against penal interest that the urinalysis if performed properly “will come back positive.” Investigator Clark Hiebert testified that the defendant “appeared to be somewhat under the influence of something.” Hiebert testified that the defendant’s “eyes were very glassy,” he did not “appear to be alert.” This is some evidence in support of the inference arising from the refusal to cooperate fully with the taking of the urine test. The arresting officer stopped the defendant for crossing the centerline several times on a curvy road but observed nothing else unusual about the defendant’s driving. The state failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was under the influence of drugs and that he was less safe to drive as a consequence of being under the influence of drugs. The state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was under the influence of marijuana to such extent that he was a less safe driver under OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (2). See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
Decided June 1, 1998.
Robert S. Reeves, for appellant.
Michael J. Moses, Solicitor, for appellee.