Scheipers v. State, 505 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Scheipers v. State, 505 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Bagwell v. State, 547 S.E.2d 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)
How cited ↗
Cited for
234 Ga. App. at 113 physical precedent only2 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Bagwell v. State, 547 S.E.2d 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
    (physical precedent only)
  • Campbell v. State, 545 S.E.2d 6 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). 2 cites
    Osborne, District Attorney, F. Andrew Lane, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. 1 OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1). 2 OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5). 3 OCGA § 40-6-72. 4 Brown v. State, 239 Ga. App. 520 ( 521 SE2d 454 ) (1999). 5 A videotape o…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Scheipers
v.
the State
A98A1478.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Aug 24, 1998.
505 S.E.2d 835
1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 1157
Casey & Rowsey, Thomas C. Rowsey, for appellant., Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor, Jeffrey P. Kwiatkowski, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.
Ruffin, Pope, Beasley.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
Ruffin, Judge.

Following a bench trial, Guy Scheipers was found guilty of having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10 grams or more within three hours after driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle. See OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5). Scheipers contends in his sole enumeration of error that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the machine used to test his breath has a 0.010 margin of error. We disagree and affirm his conviction.

The evidence shows that Scheipers was given a breathalyzer test on an Intoximeter 5000 machine following his arrest for driving under the influence. The first sample revealed a 0.101 blood alcohol concentration. The second sample, which was taken two minutes later, showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.103. Scheipers argues that his conviction cannot rest upon these test results because the Intoximeter 5000 machine has a margin of error of 0.010. Scheipers made this argument below, and the trial court acknowledged that his “true blood alcohol reading could have been a 0.111 just as well as it could have been a 0.093.” Nonetheless, the trial court found Scheipers guilty of having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10 grams or more within three hours after driving or being in[*113] actual physical control of a vehicle. OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5).

Decided August 24, 1998. Casey & Rowsey, Thomas C. Rowsey, for appellant. Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor, Jeffrey P. Kwiatkowski, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.

We find these test results sufficient to support Scheipers’ conviction. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979); Lanier v. City of Manchester, 205 Ga. App. 597 (423 SE2d 30) (1992); Newton v. State, 191 Ga. App. 664 (382 SE2d 432) (1989). A breathalyzer machine’s margin for error relates “to the weight rather than the admissibility of breathalyzer results.” Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124, 126 (3) (401 SE2d 516) (1991). “[T]he weight to be given the various evidence is exclusively an issue for resolution by the factfinder.” Jones v. State, 226 Ga. App. 608, 609 (487 SE2d 89) (1997). Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial judge erred in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Pope, P. J., concurs. Beasley, J., concurs in the judgment only.