Defendant was charged, via accusation, with permitting an unauthorized minor to drive a motor vehicle. The case was tried before a jury and Officer Tim Pafford of the Ware County Sheriff's Department testified that on April 17, 1989, he investigated a traffic accident on a public road in Ware County and discovered that defendant's child was the driver of the wrecked vehicle. Officer Pafford further testified that he went to defendant's home, informed defendant of the collision and told defendant that "his children were en route to the hospital." Officer Pafford then testified that defendant "made a statement . . . that he had let the boy drive the car to go to Pogo Foods at Carswell and South Augusta, which is a half a mile from [defendant's] residence."
Defendant's son, who was 16 years of age on the day of the collision, testified that he drove an automobile without a driver's license on April 17, 1989; that he asked his father for permission to drive; that defendant "wasn't feeling good [and] was still half asleep . . ." when he inquired and that "it sounded like [defendant] said yes." Defendant was found guilty of the offense charged and this appeal followed the denial of his motion for new trial. Held:
1. In his first and third enumerations, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and also contends that "the uncorroborated alleged confession by [defendant] did not justify a conviction."
2. In his second enumeration, defendant contends the trial court erred in charging as follows: "You are only concerned, however, with the guilt or innocence of the defendant. You are not to concern yourselves with anything concerning punishment. That is a matter for the court, and the responsibility of the court." Defendant argues that this jury instruction "may have left the jury with the impression that it was to find [defendant] guilty, so that the court would sentence him." Defendant also argues that "[t]he jury may have further considered that the court presumed [defendant] guilty and that, it, not the jury would set sentence." These arguments are without merit.
The trial court's instruction is an accurate statement of the law. See Wilson v. State, 233 Ga. 479
, 482 (8) (211 SE2d 757
). Further, the instruction is not misleading, but is sufficiently clear to be understood by jurors of ordinary understanding. Lovell v. State, 189 Ga. App. 311 (1)
, 312 (375 SE2d 658
). This enumeration is without merit.