Smith v. State

The evidence supported the trial court's determination that the DUI defendant was driving one of the vehicles involved in an accident and that he had a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a bench trial, Jason Smith appeals from his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol with an unlawful blood alcohol concentration “DUI per se” in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 a 5. Smith contends that 1 the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of guilt; 2 the printed Intoxilyzer 5000 test results were inadmissible under OCGA § 40-6-392 a 1 B; 3 the State unlawfully failed to disclose the computer “source code” of the Intoxilyzer 5000; 4 the trial court erroneously denied his motion for a continuance pending the outcome of a Kentucky appeal pertaining to the source code; and 5 the trial court ruled on his motion for discharge and acquittal without making required findings. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the finding of guilt and remand for proper findings under Barker v. Wingo1 and Doggett v. United States.2

Construed in favor of the verdict,3 the evidence shows that an officer was dispatched to the scene of an automobile wreck, where he encountered Smith being treated by paramedics near his wrecked car. The paramedics told the officer that they believed Smith was under the influence of alcohol, and the officer smelled an odor of alcohol about Smith when he spoke to him. The officer called the DUI unit to investigate, and a trained DUI investigator, Sergeant Eric Teague, was dispatched to the scene. Teague smelled an odor of alcohol as he spoke to Smith, who admitted that he had “several drinks,” and Teague conducted field sobriety tests and administered an alcosensor test which returned a positive result. Teague concluded that Smith was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was a less safe driver and arrested him.

Smith v. State

The evidence supported the trial court's determination that the DUI defendant was driving one of the vehicles involved in an accident and that he had a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report