We must therefore conclude that only a general criminal intent is required under each statute. See Evans , supra, 360 Ga. App. at 616 (18), 859 S.E.2d 593 (the crime of conspiracy to commit a RICO violation under OCGA § 16-14-4 is not a specific intent crime because the statute "does not contain plain language providing that specific intent to violate the law is an element of a RICO conspiracy"); Patterson v. State , 299 Ga. 491, 493-496, 789 S.E.2d 175 (2016) (concluding that the crime of simple assault under OCGA § 16-5-20 (a) (2) was not a specific intent crime because the statute did not contain any requirement that the defendant act with the specific intent to place the victim in reasonable apprehension of receiving a violent injury); Myers v. State , 302 Ga. App. 753, 756 (2) n.11, 691 S.E.2d 650 (2010) (noting that DUI is a general intent crime because "[t]he state does not have to prove that the defendant intended to drive under the influence, only that the defendant was in an intoxicated condition and that she intended to drive") (citation and punctuation omitted).

Kirkland therefore has abandoned this enumerated error. See Court of Appeals Rule 25(c)(2); Myers v. State, 302 Ga.App. 753, 754(1), 691 S.E.2d 650 (2010).Although A.D. was unresponsive to several questions posed to her at trial about the sexual abuse, the jury could consider her prior out-of-court statements about the abuse that she made to her mother, great-grandmother, and the forensic interviewer as substantive evidence of Kirkland's guilt under the child hearsay statute.

To prove DUI, the State need not prove intent to commit the crime..Id. at 679, 680(2)(a), 515 S.E.2d 425 (citation and punctuation omitted); see Myers v. State, 302 Ga.App. 753, 755–756(2), 691 S.E.2d 650 (2010) (“driving under the influence ... [is a] crime [ ] 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.”). “Evidence is relevant which logically tends to prove or disprove any material fact which is at issue in the case, and every act or circumstance serving to elucidate or throw light upon a material issue or issues is relevant.”

To prove DUI, the State need not prove intent to commit the crime. Id. at 679, 680 (2) (a) (citation and punctuation omitted); see Myers v. State, 302 Ga. App. 753, 755-756 (2) (691 SE2d 650) (2010) ("driving under the influence . . . [is a] crime[] 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."). "Evidence is relevant which logically tends to prove or disprove any material fact which is at issue in the case, and every act or circumstance serving to elucidate or throw light upon a material issue or issues is relevant.