☢ test - Í

Overton v. State, 270 Ga.App. 285, 606 S.E.2d 306 (November 1, 2004). “[T]he trooper testified that in his opinion Overton was a less safe driver even though he did not see Overton commit any traffic violations or any unsafe acts and even though Overton was polite, his speech was not slurred, and he was not unsteady on his feet. Because the trooper had the opportunity to observe Overton’s condition he was competent to state his opinion that Overton was a less safe driver. Brent v. State, 270 Ga. 160, 162-163(3) (510 S.E.2d 14) (1998). Additionally, the GBI forensic chemist called by the defense testified on cross-examination that a person with a .11 blood alcohol level, as Overton did in this case, would have a 50 percent loss of reaction time and would show difficulty performing the fine motor skill tasks necessary to drive. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Overton was a less safe driver.” McKay v. State, 264 Ga.App. 726, 592 S.E.2d 135 (November 26, 2003). Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of DUI where lay witness described “in considerable detail” defendant’s “failed effort to move his truck” from its parking space behind a bar; that defendant smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, seemed incoherent, was slumped over the steering wheel; that defendant struck her with his vehicle, then left the scene on foot rather than waiting for police to arrive, only returning to retrieve his vehicle two days later. Jernigan v. State, 260 Ga.App. 424, 579 S.E.2d 841 (March 19, 2003). After a one-car accident, defendant was found in his vehicle, alone and highly intoxicated. “[T]ire marks on the road showed that Jernigan’s car had been weaving in the emergency lane prior to leaving the roadway” and getting stuck in the ditch. Held, factfinder was entitled to disbelieve defendant’s testimony that he got drunk after the accident, before police arrived. Walczak v. State, 259 Ga.App. 140, 575 S.E.2d 906 (January 9, 2003). “[E]vidence that, on a clear day, at 2:00 in the afternoon, on a wide four-lane divided highway, with nothing to obscure visibility, Walczak made a left turn in front of an oncoming vehicle so that collision occurred is evidence sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Walczak was rendered a less safe driver as a result of DUI.” Allen v. State, 257 Ga.App. 246, 570 S.E.2d 683 (August 30, 2002). Evidence held insufficient to support conviction for DUI – less safe: defendant’s vehicle ran off the right shoulder of the road and struck a fire hydrant and several trees. Trooper found defendant walking near scene of accident. Positive alcosensor. Trooper testified “‘I began talking to him, you know, I could – I could tell he had been drinking.’” Intoxilyzer 5000 test read 0.79 and 0.78. “[T]he trooper’s opinion that Allen was a less safe driver was not supported by any facts or observations that he used to reach his conclusion. The trooper did not testify that Allen’s speech was slurred, that he smelled of alcohol, that his eyes were red or glassy, that his walk was staggered, or that his conduct was unusual or erratic. Although the trooper stated that he gave Allen ‘a couple of field sobriety tests,’ he did not say what the tests were or how Allen performed on them…. The trooper’s conclusion that Allen was a less safe driver, unsupported by specific visual observations of his appearance or conduct, is insufficient to support a conviction.” Trooper’s testimony that defendant’s blood alcohol concentration would have been 0.08 or higher at time of accident is likewise unsupported by any facts, and trooper was not qualified as expert in “human metabolism of alcohol.” Case may accurately be cited for the proposition that mere evidence of a one-vehicle accident and that the defendant had been drinking, without evidence of impaired driving ability, is insufficient to convict for DUI-less safe. See also Peck (August 18, 2000), below. Susman v. State, 256 Ga.App. 94, 567 S.E.2d 736 (June 24, 2002). No requirement that a driver actually commit an unsafe act to violate OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(1). A violation occurs if the driver is “‘under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive,’” and the State must prove impaired driving ability. Accord , Vaughn v. State , 243 Ga.App. 816, 534 S.E.2d 513 (May 4, 2000); Moran v. State , 257 Ga.App. 236, 570 S.E.2d 673 (August 30, 2002); Renkiewicz v. State , 283 Ga.App. 692, 642 S.E.2d 384 (February 22, 2007). Ricks v. State, 255 Ga.App. 188, 564 S.E.2d 793 (April 30, 2002). Conviction for DUI – less safe reversed. “[T]he fact that [defendant] was under 21 and had consumed alcohol does not establish that he was a less safe driver.” Officer conducted no field sobriety evaluations and said defendant’s demeanor did not indicate intoxication. The fact that defendant was also convicted of speeding is not discussed in the opinion in connection with the less safe issue. Distinguished, Dodds v. State , 288 Ga.App. 231, 653 S.E.2d 828 (November 5, 2007) (Officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for under-21 per se DUI, even though he didn’t have probable cause to arrest for less-safe DUI, based on smell of alcohol and defendant’s admission to drinking two beers). Larsen v. State, 253 Ga.App. 196, 558 S.E.2d 418 (January 10, 2002). DUI conviction affirmed; trial court could disbelieve defendant’s “sleepwalking” defense. “In this case, the defendant testified that she had no intent to drive and