Smith v. State, 39143
| Citation | 250 Ga. 438,298 S.E.2d 482 |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 39143,39143 |
| Parties | SMITH v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
William R. Wilburn, Canton, for John Henry Smith.
Hobart M. Hind, Dist. Atty., Albany, for State.
Smith was convicted of burglary in the Superior Court of Dougherty County and sentenced to 20 years probation, subject to certain terms and conditions, including the conditions that he "... not take into his body any substance prohibited or controlled by any law of the State of Georgia or the United States...," and that he "[a]void injurious and vicious habits--especially alcoholic intoxication and narcotics or other dangerous drugs unless prescribed lawfully." Another condition stated: "Probationer shall, from time to time, upon oral or written request by a probation supervisor or any city, county, or state law enforcement officer, produce a breath, spittle, urine, and/or blood specimen for analysis for the possible presence of a substance prohibited or controlled by any law of the State of Georgia or the United States."
On May 3, 1982, Smith reported to his probation officer, as required under the terms of his probation. Prior to reporting, he had received a telephone call from the Dougherty County Police Department instructing him to come for a urinalysis test on his reporting date, his name having been selected at random from a list of all probationers in the county. Upon reporting, Smith was compelled to give a urine specimen, which then was analyzed on a "SYVA EMIT 1000 Laboratory," a device which purportedly can detect the presence of cannabinoids in a subject's system. The subsequent analysis revealed the presence of cannabinoids, and Smith immediately was arrested and placed in jail.
On June 16, 1982, after a hearing in the superior court, Smith's probationary status was revoked and he was sentenced to 90 days in jail.
1. Smith contends that the trial judge erred in failing to disqualify himself from hearing the petition for revocation, and in failing to assign Smith's recusal motion to another judge for hearing. In his recusal motion Smith alleged that he intended to challenge the accuracy of the SYVA EMIT 1000 Laboratory and the constitutionality of its use on probationers, that the trial judge had been instrumental in initiating the use of the laboratory in Dougherty County, and had made public statements regarding its accuracy and utility.
Canon 3 C of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct provides: "(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party...." "[W]hen a trial judge in a case pending in that court is presented with a motion to recuse accompanied by an affidavit, the judge's duty will be limited to passing upon the legal sufficiency of the affidavit, and if, assuming all the facts alleged in the affidavit to be true, recusal would be warranted, then another judge must be assigned to hear the motion to recuse." State v. Fleming, 245 Ga. 700, 702, 267 S.E.2d 207 (1980). " 'The test is whether, assuming the truth of the facts alleged, a reasonable person would conclude that a personal as distinguished from a judicial bias exists.' " Id.
Assuming the allegations upon which Smith's motion is based to be true, they show at most an inclination relative to evidentiary matters rather than a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. A brief consideration will demonstrate the necessity of this distinction, for without such a demarcation, no judge might ever rule but once upon a disputed question of law or factual circumstances without forever thereafter being disqualified from hearing similar matters. Accordingly, the trial judge's action in disposing of the recusal motion was proper.
2. Smith contends that the trial court erred in refusing to continue the hearing because the State failed to furnish a list of witnesses. Testifying for the State were Smith's probation officer, the laboratory operator, and a representative from the State Crime Laboratory. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wade v. Farley
...v. McDonnell do not entitle a prisoner to an independent sample of evidence used in a disciplinary proceeding"); and Smith v. State, 250 Ga. 438, 298 S.E.2d 482 (1983) (the EMIT test is sufficiently reliable to stand as the only evidence in a parole revocation hearing). But see, Higgs v. Wi......
-
Potts v. State
...Baker v. State, 250 Ga. 187, 297 S.E.2d 9 (1982). 34. Potts' motion to recuse the trial judge was properly denied. Smith v. State, 250 Ga. 438(1), 298 S.E.2d 482 (1983); Hunnicutt v. Hunnicutt, 248 Ga. 516(1), 283 S.E.2d 891 35. Potts argues that it "violates contemporary norms of decency" ......
-
Amalgamated Tran. U., 1277 v. Sunline Tran. Agcy.
...alone was sufficiently reliable to satisfy due process. See Jensen v. Lick, 589 F.Supp. 35 (D.N.D.1984) (single test); Smith v. State, 250 Ga. 438, 298 S.E.2d 482 (1983) (single test); Wykoff v. Resig, 613 F.Supp. 1504 (N.D.Ind.1985) (two EMIT tests); Peranzo v. Coughlin, 608 F.Supp. 1504 (......
-
Somers v. State
...EMIT test results reliable again in Works v. State, which was handed down on the same day as Driver and had nearly identical facts.66 In Smith v. State, a plaintiff's probation was revoked solely on the basis of a single, positive, unconfirmed EMIT test.67 The Supreme Court of Georgia expla......