Following a bench trial in the State Court of Henry County, John Wayne Crossley was found guilty of driving under the influence per se OCGA § 40-6-391 a 51 and reckless driving OCGA § 40-6-390.2 Crossley appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial, contending, as best we can discern, that the judgment of conviction as to driving under the influence should be reversed for the trial court’s failure to allow his sole defense of involuntary intoxication before the jury or to credit such defense upon the bench trial of the case. In support of the foregoing claim, Crossley argues, as he did below, entitlement to the defense of involuntary intoxication in that, while blacked out, he became intoxicated and drove a vehicle lacking the guilty mind necessary for conviction for his inability to remember the event. We disagree and affirm. The record shows that Crossley elected to proceed to a bench trial during the trial of his case before a jury —this, after the State presented its case-in-chief and the trial court, in an out-of-court hearing, pertinently barred Crossley’s proffer of testimony concerning earlier blackouts3 which he had experienced as providing no evidence of involuntary intoxication as not more than evidence of episodic amnesia.4
At the bench trial of his case, Crossley stipulated that his blood alcohol content level was between .192 and .194 within three hours of having two beers with dinner; that he had repeatedly driven his car over the center and side lines of the road on which he was traveling before being stopped by police; that on being stopped, he turned his vehicle off and placed his car keys on the roof thereof; that on being approached by the arresting officer, he handed over his driver’s license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration; that his vehicle smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred, and his eyes glassy and bloodshot; and, that on being asked to exit his vehicle, he toppled out and thereafter failed the field sobriety tests administered on the scene. Through counsel, Crossley otherwise further proffered that he was unable to remember the circumstances attendant to the instant blackout and that he had experienced earlier episodes of amnesia; that during these he conducted himself in an outwardly normal way; that at the time of the police stop, he was taking certain medications, these having just been changed; that he had not been intoxicated when the instant blackout occurred; and that there was no evidence which showed the formation of an intent to drive. Held :
