Dock Heard Davis, an attorney, was indicted on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was a less safe driver “DUI less safe”, OCGA § 40-6-391 a 1 Count 1; failure to maintain lane, OCGA § 40-6-48 Count 2; violating the open container law, OCGA § 40-6-253 Count 3; violating a duty upon striking a fixed object, OCGA § 40-6-272 Count 4; leaving the scene of an accident, OCGA § 40-6-270 Count 5; and reckless driving, OCGA § 40-6-390 Count 6. At trial, the court directed a verdict of acquittal on Count 5, and the jury found Davis guilty on all remaining counts except Count 3. The trial court sentenced Davis to ten days in jail plus a total of twenty-four months on probation. Davis, who represented himself at trial and proceeds pro se on appeal, argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to proceed to trial and represent himself, by refusing to give his requested charge on accident, and by excluding testimony that a sheriff’s deputy twice “planted drugs” on Davis’s clients. Finally, Davis contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his DUI conviction. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. We first address Davis’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. In so doing, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, and Davis no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence.1 We do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Davis guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.2 “As long as there is some evidence, even though contradicted, to support each necessary element of the state’s case, the verdict will be upheld.”3
The offense of DUI less safe requires proof of three elements: “1 driving, 2 under the influence of alcohol, 3 to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive.”4 Davis argues that his DUI conviction cannot be sustained because there was no evidence that his driving ability was impaired by alcohol. We disagree.
