Murdock v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Murdock v. State

101 S.E.2d 746, 96 Ga. App. 838, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 918

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1958

Docket36981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 101 S.E.2d 746 (Murdock 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

Murdock v. State, 101 S.E.2d 746, 96 Ga. App. 838, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 918 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, Judge.

Where one is charged with driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicants, evidence of the manner in which he was driving at the time is admissible on the issue of intoxication, but evidence of his manner of driving on other occasions is not relevant or material. McGregor v. State, 89 Ga. App. 522 (80 S. E. 2d 67); Harper v. State, 91 Ga. App. 456 (3) (86 S. E. 2d 7). The evidence in this case was sufficient to authorize a finding that the defendant was intoxicated to the extent that it was less safe for him to operate the motor vehicle than it would have been had he not been so affected. The contention that the State’s witness was not in position to judge whether or not the defendant’s driving ability was affected because he had not seen him operating a motor vehicle on other occasions is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

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

Townsend, Judge.

Where one is charged with driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicants, evidence of the manner in which he was driving at the time is admissible on the issue of intoxication, but evidence of his manner of driving on other occasions is not relevant or material. McGregor v. State, 89 Ga. App. 522 (80 S. E. 2d 67); Harper v. State, 91 Ga. App. 456 (3) (86 S. E. 2d 7). The evidence in this case was sufficient to authorize a finding that the defendant was intoxicated to the extent that it was less safe for him to operate the motor vehicle than it would have been had he not been so affected. The contention that the State’s witness was not in position to judge whether or not the defendant’s driving ability was affected because he had not seen him operating a motor vehicle on other occasions is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E.2d 746, 96 Ga. App. 838, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murdock-v-state-gactapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack