Rowell v. State

I concur in the judgment of affirmance for the following reasons.

1. The circumstantial evidence was sufficient under our ruling in Stephens v. State, 127 Ga. App. 416 (193 SE2d 870) to authorize the jury to convict.

2. There was sufficient direct evidence, together with the defendant’s unsworn statement, to authorize the conviction. See Hargroves v. State, 179 Ga. 722 (4) (177 SE 561).

3. For the reasons stated in my dissent to Johnson v. State, 125 Ga. App. 607 (188 SE2d 416) there was no error in allowing proof of the defendant’s refusal to take blood, *141breath or urine tests to determine the…