Porche v. State, A95A0426
| Decision Date | 25 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. A95A0426,A95A0426 |
| Parties | PORCHE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rodney M. Keys, Albany, for appellant.
J. Brown Moseley, Dist. Atty., Robert R. Auman, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bainbridge, for appellee.
Edward Porche appeals his convictions of possession of marijuana, driving under the influence of alcohol and making an improper u-turn.
The record shows that Porche was attempting to make a u-turn on railroad tracks when his car got stuck in an adjacent ditch. Porche and his companion got out of the car, and shortly thereafter the car was struck by an approaching train. A police officer arrived approximately 15 minutes later and found Porche with a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, glossy eyes and unsteady in his movements. The officer administered an alco-sensor test which was positive for alcohol, placed Porche under arrest and read to him his implied consent rights. Porche refused to submit to a blood alcohol test, and after being placed in the back seat of the patrol car, he began yelling "they're trying to plant weed on me." The officers looked in the back of the patrol car and found six individual packs of marijuana and loose marijuana leaves on the floorboard.
1. Porche asserts the trial court erred in excluding from evidence the alco-sensor test results. Porche contends he passed the test and that the results showing this should have been admitted. Since the record shows Porche tested positive for alcohol, we can only assume he is arguing the trial court should have admitted the quantitative result which measured .02 grams percent of alcohol.
" Keenan v. State, 263 Ga. 569, 571(2), 436 S.E.2d 475 (1993). Since Porche was attempting to use the results to show the amount of alcohol in his blood and such results are not admissible for that purpose, the trial court did not err in excluding such evidence. See Mendoza v. State, 196 Ga.App. 627(2), 396 S.E.2d 576 (1990).
2. Porche also asserts the trial court abused its discretion by questioning a witness in a manner which laid the proper foundation for the admission of evidence. We note initially that in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. State
...347 S.E.2d 269 (1986); see also as to foundation, Keenan v. State, 263 Ga. 569, 571-572(2), 436 S.E.2d 475 (1993); Porche v. State, 217 Ga.App. 325, 457 S.E.2d 578 (1995). No foundation was required in Hunter v. State, 143 Ga.App. 541, 543(5), 239 S.E.2d 212 (1977) because this involved a s......
-
State v. Holler, s. A96A1845
...of the amount of alcohol or drug in a person's blood. See Keenan v. State, 263 Ga. 569, 571(2), 436 S.E.2d 475; Porche v. State, 217 Ga.App. 325(1), 457 S.E.2d 578; Turrentine v. State, 176 Ga.App. 145, 146(1), 335 S.E.2d 630; see also Ayers v. City of Atlanta, 221 Ga.App. 381, 382(3), 471 ......
-
Price v. State, A96A1927
...to arrest a motorist suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Porche v. State, 217 Ga.App. 325(1), 457 S.E.2d 578 (1995). It is evident from a review of the transcript of the trial that the police officer, counsel for both parties, and the c......
-
Capps v. State
...to arrest a motorist suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Porche v. State, 217 Ga.App. 325-326(1), 457 S.E.2d 578 (1995). Accordingly, the results are inadmissible to show the blood alcohol level revealed by the test. Id. at 326, 457 S.E......
-
The Harper Standard and the Alcosensor: the Road Not Traveled
...143 Ga. App. 541, 543-44, 239 S.E.2d 212, 214 (1977) (predecessor to alcosensor admissible as screening device). 22. Porche v. State, 217 Ga. App. 325, 325-26, 4457 578, 578 (1995). 23. Sturdy v. State, 192 Ga. App. 71, 72, 383 S.E.2d 632, 634 (1989); see State v. Holler, 224 Ga. App. 66, 6......