Summary
guiding a car being pushed by 10 or 12 people is "operating"
Summary of this case from Williams v. StateOpinion
40318.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 16, 1963.
Driving U. I., and without license. Cobb Superior Court. Before Judge Henderson.
Wm. H. Burke, for plaintiff in error.
A conviction of operating or driving a vehicle under the influence of intoxicants is authorized where it is shown that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquors and guided an automobile down a street, although the original force which set such vehicle in motion was from an outside source and the engine on such vehicle was not running at the time.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 16, 1963.
The defendant was convicted on both counts of a two-count indictment. The first count charged him with operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants and the second with operating a motor vehicle without possessing an operator's license. Thereafter the trial court overruled his motion for new trial, based on the usual general grounds only, and error is now assigned on such adverse judgment.
The evidence adduced showed that the automobile had stalled in traffic and at an intersection and would not start, and that some ten or twelve people then pushed the automobile around the corner where it continued to roll, with the defendant guiding, down the street until it stopped in a parking lot. While there was no evidence adduced that the defendant had been driving when the automobile stalled, there was evidence of the defendant's intoxicated condition as well as his failure to possess an operator's license. The sole question for decision is whether evidence that an automobile started in motion from outside force when continued to be operated after such force is removed is operated or driven so as to render one guiding such vehicle guilty of violating Code Ann. § 68-1625 if he is under the influence of intoxicants at the time.
In Harris v. State, 97 Ga. App. 495 ( 103 S.E.2d 443), it was held that one under the influence of intoxicants who guides an automobile, unable to move under its own power, down a street is guilty of violating Code Ann. § 68-1625, supra, and under such decision the verdict of guilty was authorized in the present case and the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial based on the usual general grounds only.
Judgment affirmed. Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.