Angel Marie Gantt was found guilty by a jury of driving under the influence of drugs to the extent that she was less safe to drive, OCGA § 40-6-391 a 2, driving without a license in her possession, OCGA § 40-5-29, and improper stopping, OCGA § 40-6-203. The accusation also included a “per se” count of DUI —driving with cocaine and its metabolites in her system in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 a 6, but the State nol prossed this count after the trial court granted Gantt’s motion to suppress the results of the State-administered blood and urine tests. The State’s motion to introduce similar transaction evidence and Gantt’s general and special demurrers to the accusation were denied. Following entry of judgment, Gantt’s motion for new trial was denied, and Gantt filed this appeal. She contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence that she refused the State’s request for blood and urine tests and in denying her special demurrer to the accusation. We find no error and affirm. At trial, the evidence showed that at approximately 2:45 a.m. in October 1999 a concerned citizen reported a possible drunk driver in Lawrenceville. A Lawrenceville police officer testified that he responded to the call. The officer observed the described car, a red Mitsubishi Eclipse, stopped at a traffic signal along with several other cars. When the light turned green the car in front of the Mitsubishi drove through the intersection but the Eclipse remained stopped, forcing vehicles behind it to change lanes and go around it in order to proceed. Because the Eclipse remained stopped, cars approaching the intersection had to brake hard and go around it to keep from hitting the Eclipse.
The officer pulled his marked patrol car behind the Eclipse and activated his blue lights to prevent cars from colliding with the Eclipse. He left the police car and approached Gantt, the driver. The officer described her movements when she was trying to find her license and insurance card as “frantic, almost frenzied.” Based upon his experience and training, the officer believed she had taken an overdose of some drug that was causing her “bizarre behavior.” He believed she was not under the influence of alcohol but was under the influence of drugs, to the extent that she was a less safe driver.
