King v. StateKing v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Townsend
(Aftеr stating the foregoing facts.) Special ground 4 of the amended motion for a new trial contends that the trial court erred in failing to charge without request on the law of circumstаntial evidence. The testimоny of the State’s witnesses, both as to the defendant’s drunkenness аnd as to the speed and mаnner of his driving, was direct, not circumstantial evidence of these facts. Where circumstаntial evidence alone is not relied upon, it is not error to fail to charge without request the principles of Cоde §§ 38-102 and 38-109 relating thereto. Strickland v. State, 167 Ga. 452 (1) (145 S. E. 879).
This special assignment of errоr also contends that the trial court erred in failing to chаrge the jury on the defense of misadventure and accident, which it is contended was raised by the defendant’s statement. Whilе this court is not in accord with this contention, that the statemént оf the defendant makes such а valid defense, in any event it is never error for the trial court to fail without request to charge a theory raised solеly by the defendant’s statement. Goldberg v. State 25 Ga. App. 197 (103 S. E. 90).
Sрecial ground 5, contending that there was no evidence of drunkenness on the part of the defendant, is but an amplifiсation of the general grounds. A witness for the State testified that the defendant was very drunk at the time they stopped his car. No objection was madе to this testimony. Further, *788 such testimony is not a conclusion, but is comрetent evidence. Donley v. State, 72 Ga. App. 429 (33 S. E. 2d, 925), and сases there cited. There was ample evidence to sustain the conviction under both counts of the accusation.
Judgment affirmed.
Gardner, P.J., and Carlisle, J., concur.