Box v. State
| Decision Date | 26 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 76573,76573 |
| Citation | Box v. State, 370 S.E.2d 28, 187 Ga.App. 260 (Ga. App. 1988) |
| Parties | BOX v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Christopher P. Brooks, Athens, for appellant.
Kenneth Stula, Sol., Dean C. Broome, Jr., Asst. Sol., for appellee.
Appellant Box was accused, tried, and convicted of violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(2), driving while under the influence of a drug to a degree which made him a less safe driver than he would have been but for having used the drug. He appeals from the judgment, enumerating as error the trial court's denial of his motion that the results of the chemical tests administered to him pursuant to OCGA §§ 40-5-55 and 40-6-392 be ruled inadmissible because the crime laboratory report on the tests did not state on its face the exact numerical quantity of the drugs (marijuana or its metabolites and cocaine or its metabolites) found in his blood and urine. Held:
In Durden v. State 187 Ga.App. 154, 369 S.E.2d 764 (1988), this court held, on facts virtually identical with those of the instant case, that the State had failed to comply with the requirements of OCGA § 17-7-211 in that the written scientific reports provided to defendant (identical in form to those provided to appellant Box) omitted the actual test results, and that the defense was prejudiced thereby. Durden is controlling on the issue raised, and we are therefore bound to reverse the judgment below....
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Kerr v. State
...metabolite). Appellant objected to this testimony under Durden v. State, 187 Ga.App. 154(1), 369 S.E.2d 764 (1988); Box v. State, 187 Ga.App. 260, 370 S.E.2d 28 (1988), and Camarata v. State, 188 Ga.App. 41, 42 (1), 371 S.E.2d 885 (1988), on grounds that the witness had not analyzed the qua......
-
Andrews v. State
...of exclusion of the expert's testimony. Although that decision contains broad language, as do the subsequent cases of Box v. State, 187 Ga.App. 260, 370 S.E.2d 28 (1988), and Camarata v. State, 188 Ga.App. 41, 42(1), 371 S.E.2d 885 (1988), they do not control The proscription of the code wa......
-
Camarata v. State
...to the defense, in fact comprised the entire substance of the State's case." Durden, supra at 158, 369 S.E.2d 764. In Box v. State, 187 Ga.App. 260, 370 S.E.2d 28 (1988), this court found, in factual circumstances closely similar both to Durden and to the instant case, that the omission of ......
-
Carson v. State
...Durden to be controlling. In Durden and its progeny (Camarata v. State, 188 Ga.App. 41, 371 S.E.2d 885 (1988), and Box v. State, 187 Ga.App. 260, 370 S.E.2d 28 (1988)), the defendants were charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, a crime that has as an essential ele......