Hubbard v. State, s. A92A2371
| Decision Date | 09 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | A92A2372 and A92A2373,Nos. A92A2371,s. A92A2371 |
| Citation | 429 S.E.2d 123,207 Ga.App. 703 |
| Parties | HUBBARD v. The STATE. DORSEY v. The STATE. FREE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Kenneth D. Kondritzer, Grovetown, for appellants.
Ernest H. Woods III, Sol., for appellee.
Appellants were charged with possession of an open container of alcohol, in violation of a Habersham County ordinance, and possession of less than one ounce of marijuana in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. OCGA § 16-13-30. In a bench trial, they were acquitted of violating the county ordinance and convicted of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. They appeal from the entry of the judgment of conviction and sentence, raising identical enumerations of error.
The evidence adduced at trial, viewed in a light to support the prosecution, shows that appellants were passengers in a car which was stopped by a police officer in Clarkesville, Georgia because of an expired license plate. The officer observed approximately 14 beers inside the car and arrested appellants for violating the county open container ordinance. Appellants were advised of their Miranda rights, and the officer then stated that he had reason to believe there was marijuana in the car. Appellants consented to urine tests which were performed by Officer Chesboro at the jail. A pre-trial hearing was held on appellants' motions in limine to restrict the admission of testimony regarding the results of the urinalysis, but the trial court deferred ruling on the motions until the close of the evidence. Officer Chesboro testified that he received training and was experienced in administering the "ontrack system," a test to detect the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol, and that the results of ontrack system tests performed on appellants' urine samples were positive for the presence of marijuana. Appellants renewed their objection to testimony regarding the drug detection test performed by Officer Chesboro, arguing that the State did not lay the proper foundation for the admission of the test results. Citing OCGA § 24-9-67, the trial court admitted Officer Chesboro's testimony as an expert opinion on a question of science, skill, or trade. After both sides rested, appellants moved for directed verdicts on both charges. Because the county ordinance prohibited the possession of open containers in unincorporated Habersham County and appellants were in the City of Clarkesville when the containers were discovered, the trial court granted directed verdicts for appellants on the open container charge. The court denied the motions for directed verdict on the remaining offense and convicted each appellant of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. This appeal followed.
In their first enumeration of error, appellants contend the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding the ontrack system because the State failed to show that the test was reliable. Appellants argue that the ontrack system is not a widely accepted method of detecting alcohol and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bravo v. The State
...other states have specifically rejected the technique and the State failed to establish the reliability thereof); Hubbard v. State, 207 Ga.App. 703, 704, 429 S.E.2d 123 (1993) (trial court erred in admitting evidence of the ontrack system for drug detection because the technique has not bee......
-
Mann v. State
...S.E.2d 104 (2000); Kendrick v. State, 240 Ga.App. 530, 532(2), 523 S.E.2d 414 (1999) (physical precedent only); Hubbard v. State, 207 Ga.App. 703, 704, 429 S.E.2d 123 (1993). As a result, a substantial number of courts do not appear to have concluded that the test has been established with ......
-
Izer v. State
...with verifiable certainty, or that it rests upon the laws of nature." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hubbard v. State, 207 Ga.App. 703, 704, 429 S.E.2d 123 (1993). "The trial court may make this determination from evidence presented to it at trial by the parties; in this regard expert......
-
Kendrick v. State, A99A2303.
..."RESIDENT SIGNATURE" is what purports and appears to be Kendrick's signature. Under the controlling authority of Hubbard v. State, 207 Ga.App. 703, 704, 429 S.E.2d 123, the ontrack system for drug detection is not (yet) sufficiently recognized as reliable and so is not admissible evidence w......
-
Criminal Law - Franklin J. Hogue, Laura D. Hogue, and Marcus S. Henson
...v. State, 242 Ga. App. 631, 531 S.E.2d 104 (2000); Kendrick v. State, 240 Ga. App. 530, 523 S.E.2d 414 (1999); and Hubbard v. State, 207 Ga. App. 703, 429 S.E.2d 123 (1993). 107. Cheatwood, 248 Ga. App. at 620, 548 S.E.2d at 387. 108. Id. 109. Pullin v. State, 272 Ga. 747, 748-49, 534 S.E.2......
-
Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
...Id. at 257, 526 S.E.2d at 552-53. 206. Bowen v. State, 242 Ga. App. 631, 633, 531 S.E.2d 104, 106 (2000); see also Hubbard v. State, 207 Ga. App. 703, 704, 429 S.E.2d 123, 124 (1993); Marc T. Treadwell, Evidence, 45 mercer L. rev. 229, 243 (1993). 207. 249 Ga. 519, 292 S.E.2d 389 (1982). 20......
-
The Challenge of Fingerprint Comparison Opinions in the Defense of a Criminally Charged Client
...Identification Science, 49 Hastings L.J. 1069, 1090-91 (1998). [71]. See Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 845 (1990); Hubbard v. State, 429 S.E.2d 123, 124 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). [72]. McGee Transcript, supra note 48 (testimony of Lou Cuente, Georgia Bureau of Investigation Crime Lab employee......