Fouts v. State

The evidence was insufficient to support the defendant's conviction for no proof of insurance since O.C.G.A. § 40-6-10 subsection a 1 requires the owner of a vehicle to provide proof of insurance, and the defendant did not own the vehicle.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Michelle Fouts was convicted of vehicular homicide in the first degree OCGA § 40-6-393 a, possession of methamphetamine OCGA § 16-13-30 a, no proof of insurance OCGA § 40-6-10 a 1, and operating a motor vehicle without the immediate possession of a driver’s license OCGA § 40-5-29 a.1 Fouts filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. Fouts appealed, and we remanded for the trial court to consider her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Fouts amended her motion for new trial on remand, and the trial court denied her amended motion. This appeal followed. Fouts contends that the indictment was fatally defective with respect to the no proof of insurance count and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction on this count. Fouts also contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the no proof of insurance count and in failing to sua sponte charge the jury on criminal negligence. Additionally, Fouts contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons that follow, we find that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction on the no proof of insurance count and, therefore, reverse that conviction. We affirm the convictions on the remaining counts and conclude that Fouts did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the jury’s verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. We do not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, but determine only whether the evidence authorized the jury to find the defendant guilty of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 99 SCt 2781, 61 LEd2d 560 1979.

Fouts v. State

The evidence was insufficient to support the defendant's conviction for no proof of insurance since O.C.G.A. § 40-6-10 subsection a 1 requires the owner of a vehicle to provide proof of insurance, and the defendant did not own the vehicle.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report