Scott v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Scott v. State

496 S.E.2d 270, 269 Ga. 160, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 734, 1998 Ga. LEXIS 288

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 2, 1998

DocketS98A0043; S98A0044

StatusPublished

This text of 496 S.E.2d 270 (Scott v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scott v. State, 496 S.E.2d 270, 269 Ga. 160, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 734, 1998 Ga. LEXIS 288 (Ga. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Benham, Chief Justice.

Appellants Arthur Scott and Elliot Roger Caudell were arrested in separate incidents in Stephens County, and each was tested for blood alcohol content (“BAC”). Appellant Scott’s BAC registered .215, and appellant Caudell’s BAC was measured at .289. Each man was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent it was less safe for him to drive (OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1)), and with having an alcohol concentration of .10 grams or more within three hours of driving as a result of alcohol consumed before the driving activity ended. OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5). Each defendant filed a pretrial motion to preclude conviction under § 40-6-391 (a) (5) on the ground that the statutory subsection was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motions, finding OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5) constitutional, and certified its rulings for immediate review. We granted the applications for interlocutory review to determine whether the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad or vague and whether it met the constitutional requirements of due process.

We addressed the identical issues in Bohannon v. State, 269 Ga. 130 (497 SE2d 552) (1998), where we upheld the statute against the constitutional challenges raised here. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision finding the statute constitutional. Id.

Judgments affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Benham, Chief Justice.

Appellants Arthur Scott and Elliot Roger Caudell were arrested in separate incidents in Stephens County, and each was tested for blood alcohol content (“BAC”). Appellant Scott’s BAC registered .215, and appellant Caudell’s BAC was measured at .289. Each man was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent it was less safe for him to drive (OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1)), and with having an alcohol concentration of .10 grams or more within three hours of driving as a result of alcohol consumed before the driving activity ended. OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5). Each defendant filed a pretrial motion to preclude conviction under § 40-6-391 (a) (5) on the ground that the statutory subsection was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motions, finding OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5) constitutional, and certified its rulings for immediate review. We granted the applications for interlocutory review to determine whether the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad or vague and whether it met the constitutional requirements of due process.

We addressed the identical issues in Bohannon v. State, 269 Ga. 130 (497 SE2d 552) (1998), where we upheld the statute against the constitutional challenges raised here. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision finding the statute constitutional. Id.

Judgments affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 S.E.2d 270, 269 Ga. 160, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 734, 1998 Ga. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-ga-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack