Court Opinion

ID: 9587831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:26:49.041609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:55.899658
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent as I find the State failed to present sufficient evidence to authorize a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was in control of a moving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) provides in pertinent part that “[a] person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any moving vehicle while [under] the influence of alcohol.” Although driving a vehicle while intoxicated may be shown by circumstantial evidence, State v. Hill, 178 Ga. App. 669, 670 (344 SE2d 491), such evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis in order to support a conviction. OCGA § 24-4-6. Further, it is axiomatic that the State must present sufficient evidence to authorize a finding that defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560).
The case of Jones v. State, 187 Ga. App. 132 (369 SE2d 509) (1988) relied upon by the majority is a case in which the arresting officer “spotted a vehicle stopped at a railroad crossing on a highway. [The officer] had patrolled the area some twenty to thirty minutes earlier and had not seen the car. . . . He pulled up beside the car, got out, and saw Jones slumped over the steering wheel. The car window was open, the engine was still running, and the transmission was in ‘drive.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) I certainly agree with this court’s holding in Jones v. State, 187 Ga. App. 132, supra. While the facts and circumstances in Jones v. State, supra, would indeed authorize that jury to “infer both that Jones was in actual physical control of the car while it was moving to the location at which the officer found it and that Jones was intoxicated during that movement,” the evidence in *183the case sub judice was not sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find the defendant Frye guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged. In the case sub judice, it is indeed peculiar that defendant was “staggering” some “125 to 150 yards from the scene . . .” of the overturned vehicle. However, the absence of evidence regarding the only other eyewitness to defendant’s arrest, the “unidentified man” who was at the scene when Officer Meadows arrived, is more peculiar. Was the unidentified man a witness to the incident which caused defendant’s vehicle to overturn? Was the man intoxicated? Was he a passenger in the overturned vehicle or could he have been the driver?
Decided October 20, 1988 —
Rehearing denied November 7, 1988
Harrison & Harrison, Samuel H. Harrison, G. Hughel Harrison, for appellant.
Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor, David M. Fuller, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.
The mystery of the “unidentified man” adds credit to defendant’s denial that he was the driver of the overturned vehicle and supports my view that the State’s circumstantial evidence, i.e., that defendant was walking near an overturned vehicle that was registered in his name and that he was under the influence of alcohol, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was in actual physical control of a moving vehicle. Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525, 526 (1) (314 SE2d 436). Compare Phillips v. State, 185 Ga. App. 54 (1) (363 SE2d 283).
I am authorized to state that Judge Sognier joins in this dissent.