Defendant was tried at a bench trial and convicted of driving under the influence of a prescription drug to an extent that it was less safe for her to drive. This appeal followed. Held:
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the State failed to prove that her erratic driving, slurred speech and inability to pass field sobriety tests were associated with her
Although there is no proof that defendant’s use of an “antidepressant” prescription drug caused her erratic driving, it is undisputed that defendant refused the arresting officer’s request for her to submit to a state-administered chemical test of her blood to determine whether a prohibited substance was the cause of defendant’s impaired driving abilities. This evidence authorized a presumption that defendant was under the influence of a substance which impaired her driving. OCGA § 40-6-392 (d); Mendoza v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
