Court Opinion

ID: 9858608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:33:55.810021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:09.891389
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear
Counsel for the plaintiff in error have filed with us a courteous and earnest petition to rehear.
We have carefully considered this petition and find, essentially to all intents and purposes, it is a reargument of the argument so forcefully made in the original brief. This petition, too, takes up probably more fully the holding of this Court in Bradam v. State, cited in the original opinion, and attempts to show its inapplicability to the facts of the instant case. We are satisfied though that what we said as to the applicability of the Bradam case in the original opinion is the correct application.
The only possible thing or argument made in this case that was not commented on in our original opinion is that:
“Counsel has been unable to find any case in any jurisdiction that has gone so far as to hold that in the absence of the testimony of a witness or the testimony showing an accident from which an inference could be drawn that the person’s ability to operate his vehicle had been in somewise impaired, has a conviction been sustained, * * *”
It is not necessary that an accident happen to sustain a conviction for driving while drunk. The statute *178as set forth in our original opinion makes the penalty for driving while drunk, not for an accident or thing of the kind, growing out of driving in this condition. The idea, of course, is that if one is caught or found driving or to have driven in a drunken condition regardless of whether or not there has been an accident there is a violation of the statute, and the person who has driven while intoxicated is guilty of violating the statute. Clearly, to us, under the facts as outlined in our original opinion the plaintiff in error was guilty of driving while in said intoxicated condition.
We find nothing new in this petition and consequently it is overruled.