State v. Baker, 55665
| Decision Date | 10 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 55665,55665 |
| Citation | 247 S.E.2d 160,146 Ga.App. 608 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The STATE v. BAKER. |
Hinson McAuliffe, Sol., Frank A. Bowers, R. L. O'Brien, Jr., Asst. Sol., Atlanta, for appellant.
James B. Pilcher, Atlanta, for appellee.
The defendant is accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. The state appeals the grant of her motion to suppress evidence of a breath test which had been administered to her to determine her blood-alcohol content. The trial court granted the motion because the state could not produce admissible evidence that the testing device used, a photo-electric intoximeter, had been approved by the state crime laboratory.
We affirm. Although Code § 68A-902.1, which governs the administration of blood-alcohol tests, does not contain any requirement that breath analysis equipment be approved by the state crime laboratory, such a requirement is created by Rule 570-9-.06(6) of the Rules of the Department of Public Safety, as reported in the Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Vol. VI. That regulation provides in pertinent part, as follows: "All breath tests other than the original screening test will be conducted on a photo-electric intoximeter or breath analyzer of a design specifically approved by the Director, State Crime Laboratory."
The police officer who testified for the state regarding the administration of the test was not competent to state whether the director of the state crime laboratory had approved the design of the machine in question. Proof of that fact would require either a properly authenticated record to that effect or the testimony of the director himself. Since no such evidence was available, the trial court was correct in suppressing the test results.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnston
...over objection unless a proper foundation is laid. Nelson v. State, 135 Ga.App. 212, 217 S.E.2d 450 (1975); State v. Baker, 146 Ga.App. 608, 247 S.E.2d 160 (1978). The state failed to lay the foundation. The trial court, having decided to rule on the admissibility of evidence prior to the t......
-
Bailey v. State, A97A1322
...see also Jordan v. State, supra at 179, 477 S.E.2d 583; Martin v. State, supra at 616, 448 S.E.2d 471. Both State v. Baker, 146 Ga.App. 608, 609, 247 S.E.2d 160 (1978) ("Baker ") and Willoughby v. State, 153 Ga.App. 434, 435-436(1), 265 S.E.2d 352 (1980) ("Willoughby "), are distinguishable......
-
Strickland v. State, 65214
...To support that proposition, he relies upon Rule 570-9-06(6) of the Rules of the Department of Public Safety, and State v. Baker, 146 Ga.App. 608, 247 S.E.2d 160 (1978). Appellant's argument is inapposite, since it pertains to admissibility of intoximeter results in cases involving the defe......
-
Rielli v. State
...relies upon our decisions in State v. Johnston, 160 Ga.App. 71, 286 S.E.2d 47 (affirmed 249 Ga. 413, 291 S.E.2d 543); State v. Baker, 146 Ga.App. 608, 247 S.E.2d 160; and Willoughby v. State, 153 Ga.App. 434, 435(1), 265 S.E.2d 352. All of these cases involve Rule 570-9-.06(6), Rules of the......