Devonis English was cited for numerous traffic violations. He was found guilty of all charges following a bench trial in City Court of Atlanta. Several of the charges were merged and dismissed fоr sentencing purposes. He appeals from the convictions and sentences entered on the charges of reckless driving, no insurance, and fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as to all three convictions. We find that the evidence was sufficiеnt to support English’s convictions on the charges of reckless driving and fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. We conclude, however, that thе evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for driving without insurance, and we reverse that conviction.
The evidence presented at trial showed that оn March 27, 2002, Officer Andrian Jordan of the Atlanta Police Department was on duty monitoring the intersection of Oakland Drive and Almont Drive in Atlanta, when he observed a Ford Thunderbird drivе through a stop sign. Jordan activated his blue lights and siren and pulled over the Thunderbird. As Jordan exited the patrol car and was about five feet away from the Thunderbird’s trunk, the Thunderbird рulled off with its “tires screeching.” Jordan pursued the Thunderbird in the patrol car, as the Thunderbird ran several more stop signs, scattering pedestrians trying to cross the street. Jordan caught up to the Thunderbird just before the driver “bailed out” of the car and fled on foot across an open field to a house. Jordan remained outside the housе waiting for backup. When backup officers arrived, one of them entered the house and brought the man later identified as English out on the porch, where Jordan identified him as the driver. When English’s name was checked through computer records, it showed that his driver’s license had been revoked and, “also, there was no insurance for vehicle.”
1. English contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, OCGA § 40-6-395. The statute provides:
It shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle willfully to fail or refuse to bring his or her vehicle to a stop or otherwise to flee or attempt to elude a pursuing police vehicle of police officer when given a visual or an audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop. The signal given by the police officer may be by hand, voice, emergency light, or siren. The officer giving such signal shall be in uniform prominently displaying his or her badge of office, and his or her vehicle shall be appropriately marked showing it to be an official police vehicle.
OCGA § 40-6-395 (a).
English argues that the burden is on the State to establish each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt and that the record does not show that Officer Jordan was in uniform, that he prominently displayed his badge, or that his vehicle was appropriately mаrked. He argues that the elements of the crime therefore were not proved. We do not agree.
The statute’s objective is to ensure that a violation is fоund only when the evidence permits a rational factfinder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual fleeing “could not reasonably mistake thе pursuing police car for something else.” (Punctuation omitted.)
Ray v. State,
2. English asserts that insufficient evidenсe was presented at trial to support a conviction for reckless driving. The uniform traffic citation (UTC) issued by the officer indicated that the reckless driving occurred at the intersection of Oakland Drive and Almont Drive, but the record shows that the only offense that occurred at that location was English’s failure to stop at a stop sign. Officer Jordan testified that the basis for the charge of reckless driving was English’s conduct in forcing pedestrians to “jump and dodge out of the way” because English was “driving at a high rate of speed all over the roadway.” According to the officer’s testimony, however, this did not occur at the intersection cited in the UTC, but instead at two other intersections. This contention is without merit.
OCGA § 40-6-390 (a) provides: “Any person who drives any vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property commits the offеnse of reckless driving.” To establish a violation of this statute, the State needed only to present evidence showing that English drove in a manner that exhibited reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property.
Klaub v. State,
Moreover, the exact location of the recklеss driving is not a material element of the offense, as long as it occurred within the jurisdiction.
Chavous v. State,
3. English maintains the evidence wаs insufficient to find him guilty of driving without insurance in violation of OCGA § 40-6-10 (b). We are constrained to agree. The UTC .charged English with “no insurance,” a violation of OCGA § 40-6-10. Two different violations are еncompassed by OCGA § 40-6-10. Subsection (a) (1) provides, in pertinent part: “Until January 31, 2003, the owner or operator of a motor vehicle for which minimum motor vehicle liability insurance coverage is required under Chapter 34 of Title 33 shall keep proof or evidence of required minimum insurance coverage in the vehicle at all times during thе operation of the vehicle.” Subsection (b) provides, in pertinent part: “An owner or any other person who knowingly operates or knowingly authorizes anothеr to operate a motor vehicle without effective insurance on such vehicle or without an approved plan of self-insurance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
The citation did not specify which subsection of the statute English was charged with violating. This court has held, however, that when a UTC describes the crime as “no insurance,” as opposed to “no proof of insurance,” it is properly сonstrued as charging a violation of OCGA § 40-6-10 (b).
Thompson v. State,
Officer Jordan testified that the computer check showed “no insurance for vehiсle.” Jordan also testified that English “did not produce any insurance information.” Although English admitted he knew that his license had been revoked and admitted he had been driving his girlfriend’s car, he made no admissions regarding any knowledge that any car he had driven was uninsured. It is true that such knowledge “may be inferred from other facts and circumstances.” (Punctuatiоn and footnote omitted.) Thompson, supra at 881 (2). In this case, however, we conclude that although the State may have proved that the vehicle was uninsured and that English was driving it without а license to drive, no evidence presented permits the inference beyond a reasonable doubt that English had knowledge that the car was uninsured. English’s conviction for that offense therefore must be reversed.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.