Carr v. State

• Decision Date: 17 September 1996
• Docket Number: No. A96A1179,A96A1179
• Citation: 476 S.E.2d 75,222 Ga.App. 776
• Parties: CARR v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 75

476 S.E.2d 75

222 Ga.App. 776

CARR v. The STATE.

No. A96A1179.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Sept. 17, 1996.

Ralph M. Hinman, III, Dalton, for appellant.

Kermit N. McManus, District Attorney, Forest L. Miles, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

ANDREWS, Judge.

James D. Carr appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of driving a vehicle under the influence of drugs and improper lane usage.

Carr was observed driving a tractor-trailer rig on Interstate 75 weaving aimlessly from lane to lane. After he failed to respond to a Georgia state trooper's efforts to stop him with flashing lights and a siren, two additional state troopers and a Department of Transportation enforcement employee were dispatched in their vehicles to assist in the stop. The four vehicles, with activated lights and sirens, boxed in the moving tractor-trailer, and, while avoiding a collision with the erratically weaving rig, gradually decelerated until Carr finally stopped. Carr was found in the driver's seat unresponsive to the officers, staring straight ahead, his hands tightly gripping the steering wheel. Carr was unable to maintain his balance and had to be assisted by the officers to get out of the rig and walk. The officers testified that, although they did not detect any of the usual signs that Carr was under the influence of alcohol, he clearly appeared to be under the influence of some kind of intoxicant or drug to the extent that he was an unsafe driver. Carr was arrested for driving under the influence and later charged with driving under the influence of certain drugs to the extent that it was less safe for him to drive. OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(2).

After being read implied consent rights, Carr consented to a State-administered chemical test of his blood for the purpose of determining whether he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Thereafter, Carr was taken to a local hospital where blood was withdrawn from him for the State-administered test. At that time, Carr also had his own independent testing done. The blood withdrawn was analyzed at the State Crime Lab. A forensic toxicologist from the State Crime Lab testified at trial that Carr's blood tested positive for the presence of the drugs carisoprodol and its metabolite, meprobamate, and diazepam and its metabolite, nordiazepam. The toxicologist testified that both carisoprodol and diazepam are prescription drugs with sedative effects and that the unusually high level of carisoprodol found in Carr's blood was enough by itself to have caused Carr's erratic driving and unresponsive demeanor.

1. Carr claims the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike the testimony of the toxicologist as to the results of the State-administered chemical testing of his blood

because the State failed to present probative evidence that the person who withdrew his blood for the test was qualified as required under OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(2).

OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(2) provides in part that "[w]hen a person shall undergo a chemical test at the request of a law enforcement officer [under OCGA § 40-5-55], only a physician, registered nurse, laboratory technician, emergency medical technician, or other qualified person may withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content therein...." Although the statutory requirement of OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(2) that blood be withdrawn by a qualified person refers only to testing of blood "for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content ..." (emphasis supplied), the testing referred to by the statute is done pursuant to OCGA § 40-5-55(a), which provides for a driver's implied consent "to a chemical test or tests of his or her blood ... for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol or any other drug...." (Emphasis supplied.) Construing the two statutes together, we conclude that, since the chemical testing serves the dual purpose of detecting the presence of alcohol or drugs, the statutory requirement that blood used in the testing be withdrawn by a qualified person applies to all blood test results showing drug content as well as alcoholic content. Accordingly, the "qualified person" requirement of OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(2) applies in this case even though the blood test results showed only drug content rather than alcoholic content.

OCGA § 40-6-392 establishes mandatory requirements for the admission of chemical blood test results in criminal cases arising out of violations of OCGA § 40-6-391 in which such violations are an essential element of the charged offense. Harden v. State, 210 Ga.App. 673, 674, 436 S.E.2d 756 (1993); Munda v. State, 172 Ga.App. 857, 858, 324 S.E.2d 799 (1984). Thus, when the State seeks to prove the charged offense by using evidence of the chemical test results, it must show compliance with the statutory requirements. Harden, supra. In this case, as to the requirement that blood be withdrawn by a qualified person, the State neither produced the person who withdrew the blood to...