Court Opinion

ID: 9848457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:20:04.012797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:19.250301
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
dissenting.
I concur in the dissent and submit the following factors in further support of it.
It is true that there was some evidence that decedent’s right turn signal was on after the collision occurred, permitting the inference that it was on when the collision occurred, but no evidence as to how soon before or at what distance in advance of decedent’s turn it was activated. It could not have been great, because decedent had just *362turned onto this road from another at which he had stopped for a red light. The most precise measurement in the record is the investigating officer’s testimony that the distance between the turn from the other road to the point of impact was about equal to that between the courtroom and the tax assessor’s office across the street. Defendant testified that there was no advance indication that decedent was going to stop or make the turn, and that he himself was watching the road and traffic while driving.
Decided March 14, 1988.
James F. Findlay, for appellant.
Sam B. Sibley, Jr., District Attorney, for appellee.
Although a witness gave a statement to the police, the witness was not produced by the State. Nor was any other eyewitness, although the time of day, the place, the number of persons in the photos, and the testimony about traffic indicates that there were some. Neither did the State produce the videotape made by the investigating officers of the scene. There was thus some absent evidence in the State’s case.
The court’s findings were undeniably in part based on no evidence and in part on unsupported inference or deduction from the incomplete evidence produced by the State. A case resting upon inferences made from inferences is insufficient in proof where the inference is too remote. Spruell v. Ga. Automatic Gas &c. Co., 84 Ga. App. 657, 663 (67 SE2d 178) (1951); Georgia R. &c. Co. v. Harris, 1 Ga. App. 714 (57 SE 1076) (1907).
Thus I agree that the evidence which was offered did not support the judgment that, beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant was guilty of following too closely and that this activity caused a homicide. I would not go so far as to say that the evidence pointed to failure of defendant to keep his attention properly focused in front of him.