Opinion
36981.
DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1958.
Driving under the influence of intoxicants. Before Judge McGehee. Fayette Superior Court. October 25, 1957.
Wallace, Wallace Wallace, S. B. Wallace, for plaintiff in error.
Andrew J. Whalen, Jr., Solicitor-General, contra.
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.
DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1958.
William S. Murdock was indicted, tried and convicted in the Superior Court of Fayette County for the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquors. The arresting officer testified: that he followed the defendant's automobile for over a mile, and the defendant was weaving around in the road and across the center line; that he then stopped him; that the defendant got out of the car, staggered, and appeared to be heavily intoxicated; that there was a strong odor of alcohol about him, and an empty half-pint bottle with the odor of alcohol on it was found on the floorboard under the driver's seat; that the defendant was intoxicated to the extent that it was considerably less safe for him to drive than it would otherwise have been. The sheriff before whom the defendant was taken testified that he was intoxicated and smelled strongly of alcohol when he first saw him. The defendant introduced no evidence, but contended that his method of driving was due to a slow leak in one of his tires and that he had already stopped the car before the arresting officer approached him, and that he was not intoxicated at the time.