Durden v. State, 75920
Decision Date | 04 April 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 75920,75920 |
Citation | 369 S.E.2d 764,187 Ga.App. 154 |
Parties | DURDEN v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William C. Akins, Atlanta, for appellant.
Ralph T. Bowden, Jr., Sol., Richard R. Read, R. Andrew Fernandez, N. Jackson Cotney, Jr., Asst. Solicitors, for appellee.
This is an appeal of a conviction for two counts of driving under the influence in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391. The main ground of appeal involves expert testimony as to appellant's blood and urine samples and the evidence of marijuana usage shown thereby. Held:
1. The trial court erred in admitting evidence of, and allowing the forensic expert to testify to, the presence of 180 to 200 nanograms of THC metabolites per milliliter of blood and urine sampled, and as to the degree, quantity, and effect of marijuana usage indicated or proved by these particular test results.
The appellant under OCGA § 17-7-211 duly requested copies of all written scientific reports which would be introduced into evidence. The State submitted to him a copy of a crime lab report which states, in pertinent part, simply:
At trial, the forensic witness over objection was permitted to testify at length as to her test results not stated in the crime lab report, which were that appellant's blood and urine samples contained approximately 180-200 nanograms of THC per milliliter. The prosecutor's direct questions were put this way:
The defense objected strenuously and stated it had no objection if the State were only to admit that THC metabolites were found, as stated in the crime lab report, but that the State should not be allowed to quantify that stated result by giving the expert testimony just described. The trial court allowed the evidence, because the expert testified that these test results were written only in her "working notes" and thus were never written in a report which would have been required to be submitted to the defendant.
Her direct examination continued:
We have cases holding that "OCGA § 17-7-211 requires the defendant be given a complete written copy of the results of any scientific test, but ... the statute does not require the State to furnish the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bryant v. State
....357 or .38 caliber revolver, she testified at trial that the bullet was more consistent with a .357 caliber. Citing Durden v. State, 187 Ga.App. 154, 369 S.E.2d 764 (1988), Bryant complains that he received no notice of the examiner's latter opinion pursuant to the discovery rules. Durden ......
-
Mathis v. State
...in the official report is governed by Andrews v. State, 196 Ga.App. 790, 397 S.E.2d 63 (1990), rather than by Durden v. State, 187 Ga.App. 154, 369 S.E.2d 764 (1988) as he argues. "The proscription of [OCGA § 17-7-211] was applied in Durden, supra, at 158, 369 S.E.2d 764, because 'the scien......
-
Kirkland v. State
...were not testifying as to any undisclosed scientific test results of appellant's own bodily fluids. Compare Durden v. State, 187 Ga.App. 154, 155 (1), 369 S.E.2d 764 (1988), aff'd, 258 Ga. 720, 375 S.E.2d 610 (1988). They were merely testifying, as experts, on the characteristics of the dru......
-
Nobles v. State
...the State's witnesses as to the implications of the test results and the formation of their opinions. See Durden v. State, 187 Ga.App. 154(1), 158, 369 S.E.2d 764. No grounds for reversal have been shown 6. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in quashing a subpoena of a television......