Columbus v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Columbus v. State

406 S.E.2d 576, 200 Ga. App. 81, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 725

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 19, 1991

DocketA91A0974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 406 S.E.2d 576 (Columbus v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Columbus v. State, 406 S.E.2d 576, 200 Ga. App. 81, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 725 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and acquitted of reckless driving. He appeals. Held:

1. The evidence was more than sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560). Questions regarding the arresting officer’s credibility and the credibility of witnesses who testified [82]*82on defendant’s behalf were properly left to the jury.

Decided June 19, 1991. Jeffrey R. Sliz, for appellant. Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor, for appellee.

2. In light of the fact that defendant was acquitted of reckless driving, he cannot complain that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict of acquittal with regard to the reckless driving charge. “Harm as well as error must be shown affirmatively by the record to authorize a reversal. Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216 (215 SE2d 223) (1975). [Defendant’s] contention that the submission of the issue of [reckless driving] to the jury caused it to reach a compromise verdict on the . [driving under the influence of alcohol] charge is mere speculation and conjecture unsupported by the record.” Hazelrig v. State, 171 Ga. App. 942, 943 (1) (321 SE2d 437).

Judgment affirmed.

Sognier, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and acquitted of reckless driving. He appeals. Held:

1. The evidence was more than sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560). Questions regarding the arresting officer’s credibility and the credibility of witnesses who testified [82]*82on defendant’s behalf were properly left to the jury.

Decided June 19, 1991. Jeffrey R. Sliz, for appellant. Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor, for appellee.

2. In light of the fact that defendant was acquitted of reckless driving, he cannot complain that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict of acquittal with regard to the reckless driving charge. “Harm as well as error must be shown affirmatively by the record to authorize a reversal. Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216 (215 SE2d 223) (1975). [Defendant’s] contention that the submission of the issue of [reckless driving] to the jury caused it to reach a compromise verdict on the . [driving under the influence of alcohol] charge is mere speculation and conjecture unsupported by the record.” Hazelrig v. State, 171 Ga. App. 942, 943 (1) (321 SE2d 437).

Judgment affirmed.

Sognier, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 S.E.2d 576, 200 Ga. App. 81, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbus-v-state-gactapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack