Martin v. State

• Decision Date: 23 April 1990
• Docket Number: No. A90A0156,A90A0156
• Citation: 195 Ga.App. 548,394 S.E.2d 551
• Parties: MARTIN v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 551

394 S.E.2d 551

195 Ga.App. 548

MARTIN v. The STATE.

No. A90A0156.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 23, 1990.

Rehearing Denied May 9, 1990.

Certiorari Denied June 21, 1990.

Virgil L. Brown & Associates, Virgil L. Brown, Zebulon, for appellant.

John T. Newton, Jr., Sol., Griffin E. Howell III, Asst. Sol., for appellee.

CARLEY, Chief Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of speeding and driving under the influence in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(4). He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury's guilty verdicts.

1. "Defense counsel has concluded his arguments as to each enumeration of error by stating the trial court's action violated defendant's rights under certain designated sections of the United States and Georgia Constitutions. It behooves counsel appearing before this court to recognize that rote repetition of constitutional provisions is totally ineffective in raising a constitutional issue for this court's determination. [Cits.] A constitutional issue cannot be considered when asserted for the first time on appeal but must be clearly raised in the trial court and distinctly ruled upon there. [Cit.] Contentions regarding a constitutional issue which were not made below are thus not passed upon here." Harbin v. State, 193 Ga.App. 248-49(1), 387 S.E.2d 367 (1989).

2. The trial court's denial of appellant's motion to quash the accusation is enumerated as error.

The traffic citations were sufficient to inform appellant of the charges against him, even though they merely referred to the applicable statutes by number. "[T]he accusation[s] in effect incorporated the terms of the applicable code section[s] that [appellant] was charged with having violated. [Appellant] could not admit the allegation[s] that his acts were 'in violation of [the specified code sections],' and yet not be guilty of the offense[s] of [speeding and driving under the influence]. [Cit.]" (Emphasis in original.) State v. Howell, 194 Ga.App. 594, 595, 391 S.E.2d 415 (1990). "Every accusation which states the offense in the terms and language of the law or so plainly that the nature of the offense charged may be easily understood by the jury shall be deemed sufficiently technical and correct." OCGA § 17-7-71(c). This statute "and the standards of due process, govern the requirements of the [accusation] ..., and these requirements were satisfied in the accusations in question." State v. Military Circle, etc., No. 94, 257 Ga. 388, 390, 360 S.E.2d 248 (1987).

Appellant's further contention that the accusation failed to charge him with the crime of driving under the influence is without merit. "[T]he intent of the legislature in amending OCGA § 40-6-391 was clearly not the repeal of criminal sanctions for driving under the influence of alcohol. Appellant['s] defense based thereon was properly rejected by the trial court." Proo v. State, 192 Ga.App. 169, 170, 384 S.E.2d 197 (1989).

3. Seeking to exclude the results of his intoximeter test, appellant filed a motion to suppress and motion in limine. The failure of the trial court to hold a hearing on this motion is enumerated as error.

"Appellant was clearly not entitled to a pre-trial hearing on such grounds of his motion as had alleged the State's non-compliance with either OCGA § 40-6-392 or administrative regulations concerning the administration of a blood test. Such grounds for holding evidence to be inadmissible may be raised only by way of a motion in limine. [Cit.] ' "The trial court has an absolute right to refuse to decide the admissibility of evidence, allegedly violative of some ordinary rule of evidence, prior to trial. [Cits.]" [Cit.]' [Cit.] At the trial itself, appellant did not renew his motion for an evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury on such grounds of his pre-trial motion as had alleged non-compliance with OCGA § 40-6-392 or the administrative regulations concerning the administration of a blood test. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to hold such a hearing to determine the admissibility of the evidence and testimony as against such contentions." Sapp v. State, 184 Ga.App. 527, 530(6), 362 S.E.2d 406 (1987).

Likewise, appellant was not entitled to a pre-trial hearing pursuant to OCGA § 17-5-30. That statute " 'furnishes a procedural device for the protection of constitutional guarant[e]es against unreasonable search and seizure only.' [Cit.]" State v. Johnston, 249 Ga. 413(1), 291 S.E.2d 543 (1982). The trial court correctly relied upon Cadle v. State, 131 Ga.App. 175, 205 S.E.2d 529 (1974) and concluded that appellant's "motion to suppress did not state facts showing that the search and seizure were illegal. Rather the motion contains only a series of conclusions unsupported by statements of fact. Accordingly, the motion did not meet the statutory requirements of OCGA § 17-5-30(b), and the trial court did not err in its disposition of the motion. [Cits.]" Boatright v. State, 192 Ga.App. 112, 118(8), 385 S.E.2d 298 (1989).

4. The denial of the motion to suppress and motion in limine is also separately enumerated as error. As discussed in Division 3, however, the trial court did not, and was not required to, rule on the merits of the motions before trial. Appellant never renewed the motions during trial. It follows that the motions were never denied and that this enumeration is without merit. See Lightsey v. State, 188 Ga.App. 801, 803(2), 374 S.E.2d 335 (1988).

5. The trial court's refusal to require the State to produce a radio log and an intoximeter log pursuant to OCGA § 24-10-26 is enumerated as error.

OCGA § 24-10-26 applies only to material which is in the possession, custody or control of another party. The materials at issue here are not of the type reasonably expected to be found in the custody of the assistant solicitor who was preparing the case against appellant. The assistant solicitor stated that he did not possess the requested materials and appellant made no showing to the contrary. Accordingly, this enumeration is without merit. See Ross v. State, 192 Ga.App. 850(2), 386 S.E.2d 721 (1989); Calloway v. State, 191 Ga.App. 383, 384(2), 381 S.E.2d 598 (1989).

6. The trial court's imposition of limitations on the testimony of certain defense witnesses is enumerated as error.

A defense witness was not allowed to testify that, after ingesting acetone, an intoximeter test of his breath showed an alcohol concentration of 0.05 grams. It is clear, however, that this particular test "would not prove that the machine gave an inaccurate reading for [appellant] on [the date of his arrest], since the original test conditions ... could not have been duplicated." Kuptz v. State, 179 Ga.App. 150, 152(9), 345 S.E.2d 670 (1986). Not only was appellant not the subject of the excluded test, there was also no evidence that appellant had ingested acetone prior to his arrest.

The trial court refused to qualify a defense witness as an expert on the Intoximeter 3000. However the only proffer made by appellant was of testimony which the trial court excluded on grounds other than the witness' lack of qualification as an expert. The absence of any further proffer precludes appellate review of this enumeration. See Bowman v. State, 186 Ga.App. 544, 549(6), 368 S.E.2d 143 (1988) rev'd on other grounds, 258 Ga. 829, 376 S.E.2d 187 (1989).

Insofar as appellant's remaining contentions are concerned, "[o]ur review of the record reveals no evidence of the trial court's having discredited ... appellant's primary defense." Kuptz v. State, supra 179 Ga.App. at 152(8), 345 S.E.2d 670.

7. On voir dire, appellant's coun...