Correct, Harold, you did say that has never happened. A bold claim, considering that there have been millions of DUI prosecutions over the decades, and yet you claim that it has NEVER happened, not even once. And you are wrong again. It has happened. Since it takes just one case to prove that it has happened, here you go:
The state may show proof of impairment under OCGA § 40-6-391(a) by introducing evidence of (1) erratic driving behavior, (2) failure to pass field sobriety tests, and (3) the officer's own observations, such as smelling alcohol and observing strange behavior, and resulting opinion that the alcohol made it less safe for the defendant to drive. Here, ample evidence supports the trial judge's conclusion that Gregoire was driving under the influence, including the officer's testimony regarding Gregoire's erratic driving behavior and his characteristics and demeanor after the stop. This evidence, coupled with the officer's testimony that, based upon his observations, police training and experience, Gregoire was a less safe driver as a result of being under the influence of alcohol, was sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact to conclude that Gregoire was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Gregoire v. State, 285 Ga. App. 111, 113–14, 645 S.E.2d 611, 613–14 (2007). So, here you have case where the defendant was convicted just off the officer's observations of the defendant's driving and his condition after the stop. No chemical test. No admission from the defendant that he'd been drinking. No accident. In short, none of the other things you contended would be needed. This case disproves your earlier statement: