Offense not subject to criminal prosecution.

- Conduct proscribed is without express statutory punishment and is not an offense subject to criminal prosecution. United States v. Walter, 484 F. Supp. 183 (S.D. Ga. 1980) (decided under Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, prior to amendment by Ga. L. 1980, p. 1059, § 1).

Probable cause to arrest.

- In defendant's trial for hijacking a motor vehicle, the trial court did not err in finding that a gun and the keys to the vehicle were discovered during a search incident to a lawful arrest for hit and run in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-271(a), and therefore properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The officer had probable cause to arrest for hit and run based on an examination of the vehicle and a witness's identification of the defendant, by pointing to the defendant as the driver. Souder v. State, 301 Ga. App. 348, 687 S.E.2d 594 (2009), cert. denied, No. S10C0536, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 343 (Ga. 2010).

Evidence sufficient.

- Conviction for striking an unattended vehicle was affirmed since the record showed that, even though the victim was in the parking lot, the victim had walked away from the victim's vehicle when the defendant struck the bumper of the victim's vehicle; further, the defendant failed to provide the victim with the defendant's name and address following the incident. Crutcher v. State, 267 Ga. App. 410, 599 S.E.2d 353 (2004).

Evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of felony fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, failure to stop upon striking an unattended vehicle, and failure to stop at or return to the scene of an accident, violations of O.C.G.A. §§ 40-6-270(a),40-6-271(a), and40-6-395(a) and (b)(5)(A), when the defendant refused to stop a vehicle for two bicycle-patrol uniformed officers, drove the vehicle into one of the officers, struck two unattended vehicles, and struck an officer's marked bicycle. Fairwell v. State, 311 Ga. App. 834, 717 S.E.2d 332 (2011).

Evidence was amply sufficient for a rational finder of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating O.C.G.A. § 40-6-271 because the defendant struck two separate unattended vehicles in a parking lot, and both victims testified at trial that the victims saw the collisions occur and that the driver left the scene without speaking to either of the victims, leaving a note, or providing any contact information. Sevostiyanova v. State, 313 Ga. App. 729, 722 S.E.2d 333, cert. denied, No. S12C0968, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 612 (Ga. 2012).

Cited in Adams v. State, 293 Ga. App. 377, 667 S.E.2d 186 (2008).

Requirement to stop not extended to trains and crews.

- Requirement to stop at the scene of a motor vehicle incident does not extend to railroad trains and their operating crews. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 70-32.

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §§ 331, 332.

C.J.S.

- 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 46. 61A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 1695.

ALR.

- Liability for injuries due to collision between street car and automobile at street intersection, 28 A.L.R. 217; 46 A.L.R. 1000.

Constitutionality, construction, and effect of statute in relation to conduct of driver of automobile after happening of an accident, 66 A.L.R. 1228; 101 A.L.R. 911.

Criminal responsibility of one other than driver at time of accident, under "hit and run" statute, 62 A.L.R.2d 1130.

Sufficiency of compliance with requirement of criminal "hit and run" statute that motorist identify himself, 48 A.L.R.3d 685.