State v. Naik, A02A2074.
| Decision Date | 29 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. A02A2074.,A02A2074. |
| Citation | 259 Ga. App. 603,577 S.E.2d 812 |
| Parties | The STATE v. NAIK. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor-General, Gary S. Vey, Asst. Solicitor-General, for appellant.
Charles T. Magarahan, Atlanta, for appellee.
The State Court of Gwinnett County granted Piyush Naik's motion to suppress breath test results, finding the State failed to prove the chemical test of Naik's breath was "performed according to methods approved by the Division of Forensic Sciences of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation," as required by OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(1)(A). Pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(4), the State appeals, contending the trial court erred in construing OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(1)(A) to require opinion testimony from the Intoxilyzer operator that he performed the test according to the applicable methods. We agree and reverse.
On appeal from an order granting or denying a motion to suppress, the evidence must be construed most favorably to support the trial court's ruling. State v. Causey, 246 Ga.App. 829-830(1), 540 S.E.2d 696 (2000). "Where the evidence is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, the trial court's application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review." (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Id. at 830(1), 540 S.E.2d 696.
In pertinent part, OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(1)(A) provides:
Chemical analysis of the person's blood, urine, breath, or other bodily substance, to be considered valid under this Code section, shall have been performed according to methods approved by the Division of Forensic Sciences of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation on a machine which was operated with all its electronic and operating components prescribed by its manufacturer properly attached and in good working order and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the Division of Forensic Sciences for this purpose.
Pursuant to this Code section, the Division of Forensic Sciences adopted the following methods for conducting an evidential breath alcohol analysis:
(1) The analysis shall be conducted on an Intoxilyzer Model 5000 manufactured by CMI, Inc., except as otherwise provided in Rule 92-3-.06(5); (2) the analysis shall be performed by an individual holding a valid permit, in accordance with Rule 92-3-.02(2); and (3) the testing instrument shall have been checked periodically for calibration and operation, in accordance with Rule 92-3-.06(8)(a).
Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 92-3-.06(12)(a). Further, "[a]dministrative, procedural, and/or clerical steps performed in conducting a test shall not constitute a part of the approved method of analysis." Ga. Comp. R & Regs. r. 92-3-.06(12)(b). Under OCGA § 50-13-8, we "take judicial notice of any rule which has become effective pursuant to [the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, OCGA §§ 50-13-1 through 50-13-23]." See Rowell v. State, 229 Ga.App. 397, 398(1)(a), 494 S.E.2d 5 (1997) ().
In this case, the record reveals the following undisputed facts. While working a roadblock on June 3, 2001, a police officer arrested Naik for driving under the influence of alcohol. After reading Naik her implied consent rights, the officer requested that she submit to a breath test and Naik consented. At the hearing on the motion to suppress the results of that breath test, the arresting officer testified that (1) he conducted the breath analysis on an Intoxilyzer Model 5000 with all its components properly attached and in good working order; (2) at the time, he held a valid permit; and (3) the testing instrument had been checked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Verlangieri v. State
...v. State, supra at 511-512(1), 577 S.E.2d 796.. See also State v. Palmaka, 266 Ga.App. 595, 597 S.E.2d 630 (2004); State v. Naik, 259 Ga.App. 603, 577 S.E.2d 812 (2003). To the extent that Verlangieri's argument is that the official report and Freemont's testimony regarding the testing proc......
-
Palmaka v. State, A06A1060.
...4. 240 Ga.App. 329, 331(3), n. 1, 523 S.E.2d 395 (1999). 5. (Punctuation omitted.) Palmaka I, supra, citing Rule (12)(b). 6. 259 Ga.App. 603, 577 S.E.2d 812 (2003). 7. Id. at 604, 577 S.E.2d 812. 8. The transcript reflects that the witness has left the police force and now testifies as an e......
-
The State v. Padidham.
...725. 10. See State v. Palmaka, 266 Ga.App. 595, 596–597, 597 S.E.2d 630 (2004). 11. Id. (citation omitted). FN12. State v. Naik, 259 Ga.App. 603, 604, 577 S.E.2d 812 (2003) (citing Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 92–3–.06, and Rowell v. State, 229 Ga.App. 397, 398(1)(a), 494 S.E.2d 5 (1997) (recogn......
- Monroe v. Taylor, A02A1931.
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...107. Id. at 774, 574 S.E.2d at 923. 108. Id. 109. 259 Ga. App. 600, 577 S.E.2d 810 (2003). 110. O.C.G.A. Sec. 19-6-19 (1998). 111. 259 Ga. App. at 603, 577 S.E.2d at 812. 112. Id. at 602, 577 S.E.2d at 812 (quoting Raza v. Swiss Supply Direct, Inc., 256 Ga. App. 175, 178, 568 S.E.2d 102, 10......