☢ test - Í

insurance as of the date she was cited. Under these circumstances, the credibility of her claim that she believed she had insurance coverage is for the jury to decide under proper instructions from the trial court. See id.” Miller v. State , 243 Ga.App. 764, 533 S.E.2d 787 (April 14, 2000). Convictions for habitual violator and related offenses affirmed; “[c]ontrary to Miller's claim, the arresting officer's uncontradicted testimony that Miller produced only expired insurance cards and no proof of current insurance on his car was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Miller was guilty of driving without insurance. See Nunn v. State, 224 Ga.App. 312, 313(1)(b), 480 S.E.2d 614 (1997) (physical precedent only); Odum v. State, 220 Ga.App. 263-264, 469 S.E.2d 394 (1996).” 7. DRIVING WITHOUT PROOF OF INSURANCE Fouts v. State, 322 Ga.App. 261, 744 S.E.2d 451 (June 14, 2013). Physical precedent only. Vehicular homicide conviction affirmed, but evidence didn’t support conviction for no proof of insurance . “OCGA § 40–6–10(a)(1) provides that ‘[t]he owner or operator of a motor vehicle for which minimum motor vehicle liability insurance coverage is required ... shall keep proof or evidence of required minimum insurance coverage in the vehicle at all times during the operation of the vehicle. The owner of a motor vehicle shall provide to any operator of such vehicle proof or evidence of required minimum insurance coverage for the purposes of compliance with this subsection. ’ (Emphasis added.) Additionally, proof of insurance is not required to be inside the vehicle if the Department of Revenue database shows that the required minimum insurance coverage for the vehicle was in effect. OCGA § 40–6–10(a)(3). Here, the responding officer testified that he did not find any proof of insurance inside the Dodge Dakota. Although the responding officer indicated that the Dodge Dakota had tags registered to another vehicle, he was still able to run a title check on the vehicle to determine that Fouts did not own the vehicle. The officer did not state that he was unable to verify through the Department of Revenue records whether the Dodge Dakota was insured at the time of the accident. Moreover, the evidence presented established that Fouts was not the owner of the vehicle. The plain language of OCGA § 40–6–10(a)(1) required that the owner of the Dodge Dakota provide Fouts with proof of insurance. Indeed, it is the burden of the owner to comply with OCGA § 40–6–10(a)(1). Consequently, the evidence was insufficient to establish that Fouts violated OCGA § 40– 6–10(a)(1), and we reverse her conviction on this count. Since we reverse the conviction for no proof of insurance, we need not address Fouts's additional complaint about the jury instruction as to that conviction.” Broadnax-Woodland v. State, 265 Ga.App. 669, 595 S.E.2d 350 (February 18, 2004). Accusation charged defendant with “knowingly” driving without proof of insurance, which is not an element of the offense. Trial court did not err in failing to charge the jury that they must find that defendant committed the offense “knowingly.” “‘While the accusation included that element, its inclusion was mere surplusage, and can be entirely omitted without affecting the charge and without detriment to the accusation. Mere surplusage will not vitiate an indictment, and need not be established in proof,’” quoting Roseberry v. State, 251 Ga.App. 856, 858, 554 S.E.2d 816 (2001). Thompson v. State , 243 Ga.App. 878, 534 S.E.2d 151 (April 21, 2000). Conviction for driving without proof of insurance reversed. 1. UTC alleging that defendant drove with “no insurance” charges a violation of OCGA § 40-6-10(b), which makes it illegal to “knowingly operate[ ] ... a motor vehicle without effective insurance on such vehicle,” not, as State contends, “OCGA § 40-6-10(a)(1), which makes it illegal to drive with no proof of insurance.” “‘[T]he defendant has the right to rely on the specific manner of committing the crime that is alleged in the indictment,’” quoting Kevinezz v. State, 265 Ga. 78, 81(2)(b), 454 S.E.2d 441 (1995). “We note that, under Georgia law, “the description of the offense charged prevails over any Code section cited.’ (Punctuation omitted.) In re: B.C.G., 235 Ga.App. 1, 3(1), 508 S.E.2d 239 (1998). 2. Where accusation or indictment actually charges commission of an offense, defendant “‘was not required to specially demur to the indictment in order to avoid waiving her right to object to a jury charge on a method of committing the crime that was not specified in the indictment.’ Id. at 82-83(2)(c), 454 S.E.2d 441.” Kersey v. State , 243 Ga.App. 689, 534 S.E.2d 428 (April 21, 2000). Evidence didn’t support conviction for driving without proof of insurance: “under OCGA § 40-6-10, the State bears the burden of proving that Kersey did not have proof of insurance coverage in her van. The record does not indicate that any law enforcement officer ever asked Kersey about insurance. We have held that OCGA § 40-6-10 ‘does not require that an officer ‘request’ an insurance card in order to prosecute a driver for no proof of insurance.’ Moore [ v. State, 234 Ga.App. 332, 333(2), 506 S.E.2d 685 (1998)]. But there must be some evidence from which it can reasonably be inferred that the person charged did not have proof of insurance. Here, there is no such evidence. Compare Id. Although [Officer] Neil testified that he found an empty prescription bottle in Kersey's purse and a full 12-pack of beer in the van, nothing in his testimony suggests that he was looking for proof of insurance when he found these items or that Kersey ever declined to provide such proof.