Littlefield v. State
| Decision Date | 04 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. A90A1261,A90A1261 |
| Citation | 398 S.E.2d 375,197 Ga.App. 343 |
| Parties | LITTLEFIELD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Virgil L. Brown & Associates, Virgil L. Brown, Zebulon, Bentley C. Adams III, Thomaston, for appellant.
W. Fletcher Sams, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
The appellant was convicted in the Probate Court of Upson County of driving under the influence of alcohol. She appealed to superior court, where she was again found guilty of the offense, and then filed the present appeal to this court. Held:
1. The evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find the appellant guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt. See generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
2. The appellant contends that the results of a blood-alcohol analysis performed on a sample of blood extracted from her should have been excluded because there was no showing that the blood had been drawn by a "physician, registered nurse, laboratory technician, emergency medical technician, or other qualified person," as required by OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(2). See generally Buffington v. State, 190 Ga.App. 365(2), 378 S.E.2d 884 (1989).
The blood sample was drawn at a hospital in the presence of the investigating officer, a state trooper. Asked on cross-examination to identify the person who had performed the procedure, the trooper responded as follows: "I do not have those forms with me, but if you'll allow me to go out to my car, I think I've got them out there." Defense counsel did not respond to this offer but continued his questioning, as follows:
The state's attorney interrupted the questioning at this point to make the following suggestion: "Your Honor, it seems to me that if [defense counsel] wants to know who drew the blood, and [the trooper] has the information in his car--I don't [know] about the rest of this group, but I could use about three minutes to sit here and do nothing while he goes and gets it...." Again, the appellant's counsel expressed no interest in allowing the trooper to obtain the information in this manner but instead moved on to another subject. However, when, after the trooper had been excused, the results of the blood-alcohol test were subsequently offered as evidence, counsel objected on the ground that the identity and qualifications of the individual who had drawn the blood had not been proven.
Assuming arguendo that the testimony provided by the trooper would not otherwise have been sufficient to establish a proper foundation for the introduction of the test results, we conclude that, by ignoring the repeated offers by the trooper and the state's attorney to produce the information regarding the identity and qualifications of the individual who had drawn the blood, the appellant's counsel gave the impression that he did not intend to insist on such evidence....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Martin
...basis for claiming prejudice. (Cits.)' Hawkins v. State, 195 Ga.App. 739 (395 SE2d 251) (1990). Accord Littlefield v. State, 197 Ga.App. 343(2) (398 SE2d 375) (1990)." Rider v. State, 207 Ga.App. 519(1), 428 S.E.2d 423. In the case sub judice, Harrison's trial attorney called Martin as his ......
-
Graham v. State
...will not be heard to complain of error induced by [her] own conduct." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Littlefield v. State, 197 Ga.App. 343, 344, 398 S.E.2d 375 (1990). See also State v. Barnes, 222 Ga.App. 875, 476 S.E.2d 646 (1996); Wells v. State, 212 Ga.App. 60, 441 S.E.2d 460 Fina......
-
State v. Griffin
...with the well-established rule that a party cannot complain of matters caused by his own procedure or conduct. Littlefield v. State, 197 Ga.App. 343, 344(2), 398 S.E.2d 375; Tyson v. State, 184 Ga.App. 309, 310(1), 361 S.E.2d 386. (Additionally in the interest of judicial economy, the State......
-
Williams v. State
...information and therefore may not complain on appeal because a party may not appeal self-induced error. See Littlefield v. State, 197 Ga.App. 343, 344(2), 398 S.E.2d 375 (1990). 5. Without specifically stating how a pre-trial identification was suggestive, Williams complains that the identi......