Crossley v. State

In Crossley v. State, 261 Ga. App. 250 (582 SE2d 204) (2003), the defendant stipulated that he had been drinking earlier that evening. Id. at 250-251. The Court explained in Crossley that "driving under the influence and reckless driving are crimes malum prohibitum, the criminal intent element of which is simply the intent to do the act which results in the violation of the law, not the intent to commit the crime itself." Id. at 252. The Court concluded that "consequently, to the extent that the defendant argued an inability to form an intent to commit the crimes of which he was convicted, it was immaterial," because the state was not required to prove that the defendant intended to drive under the influence. Rather, it was required to show only that while intoxicated, the defendant drove and failed to maintain his lane, intending to do so. Id.