Sturdy v. State, A89A1200
| Decision Date | 21 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. A89A1200,A89A1200 |
| Citation | 192 Ga.App. 71,383 S.E.2d 632 |
| Parties | STURDY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Edward T. M. Garland and Charles G. Haldi, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lydia S. Jackson, Sol. and Raymond E. George, Asst. Sol., for appellee.
Defendant was charged, via accusation, with driving under the influence of alcohol to an extent which rendered him a less safe driver under the provisions of OCGA § 40-6-391(a)(1) and also charged with speeding.
At trial, Officer C. L. Gober of the Georgia State Patrol testified that he stopped defendant for "speeding" on September 23, 1988. He further testified he observed defendant was unsteady on his feet; that defendant had "a strong odor of alcohol on his breath" and that he "gave [defendant] an alkasensor test." Officer Gober described an "alkasensor" as "a portable intoximeter, it's a little small hand-held device that [law enforcement officers] use on the scene to determine whether or not the person needs to be taken to the jail for an intoximeter test [and that the alkasensor] measures the amount of alcohol, if you've consumed any alcohol it gives a digital readout ... to show the amount." Officer Gober then testified that defendant tested "positive" for alcohol on the "alkasensor" and that "[d]ue to the high level of the results of the alkasensor test[, he] didn't feel any need to conduct any additional [field sobriety] test[s]."
Defendant's counsel immediately objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing that the numerical results of defendant's "alkasensor" test is inadmissible; that Officer Gober's testimony regarding the "high" results of defendant's test was "exactly the same as giving the [numerical] results" and this testimony was "going to cost [defendant his] right to a fair trial ... ." The trial court stated that the propriety of Officer Gober's testimony is "certainly a close question" and asked defense counsel, "do you want me to try to give some curative instructions which may call more attention to this [testimony]?" Defendant's attorney responded, "Hobson's choice," and pressed his motion for mistrial. The trial court agreed that the giving of curative instructions was a "Hobson's choice" but denied defendant's motion and instructed the jury as follows: "Ladies and Gentlemen let me state to you first that the results, specific results of an alkasensor are not admissible in court and to the extent that there was an indication of a specific result of the intoximeter you are not to consider that at all, the only thing that is admissible is whether or not the results were positive or negative for the presence of alcohol."
Officer Gober finally testified that defendant's face and eyes "appeared to be a little red" on the night he was stopped; that defendant refused to submit to a State administered "intoximeter test" and that, based on his expertise as a law enforcement officer, defendant was then a less safe driver due to "intoxication." Defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol to an extent which rendered him a less safe driver and also was found guilty of speeding. This appeal followed solely as to the conviction and sentence for driving under the influence of alcohol to an extent which rendered him a less safe driver. Held :
In his sole enumeration of error, defendant contends "[t]he trial court erred in allowing [Officer Gober to] testify as to the specific results of the alkasensor test given to [him]."
At the outset, we note that Whiteley v. State, 188 Ga.App. 129(1), 131, 372 S.E.2d 296.
From this perspective, we observe in the case sub judice that the State's attorney was directed by the trial court before trial to instruct Officer Gober not to mention the specific ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Head v. CSX Transp., Inc.
...524 (1998). 11. OCGA § 5-5-21. 12. (Citation omitted.) Mills, supra, 188 Ga. at 623, 4 S.E.2d 453. 13. Id. 14. Sturdy v. State, 192 Ga.App. 71, 72, 383 S.E.2d 632 (1989); Barkwell v. Helms, 140 Ga. App. 273, 274, 231 S.E.2d 5 15. "The contributory negligence of the plaintiff/employee `shall......
-
Travis v. State
...doubt of DUI,3 we find no abuse in the trial court's discretion in denying Travis's motion for mistrial. See Sturdy v. State, 192 Ga.App. 71, 72–73, 383 S.E.2d 632 (1989). 4. Travis also asserts that she was entitled to a mistrial because, during publication of the videotaped traffic stop, ......
-
State v. Holler, s. A96A1845
...alco-sensor test as "high" has been held to constitute inadmissible evidence of the degree of a suspect's intoxication. Sturdy v. State, 192 Ga.App. 71, 383 S.E.2d 632. However, evidence can be admitted, as was allowed in this case, as to whether a suspect tested positive or negative, or pa......
-
Mendoza v. State, A90A0080
...device to determine whether there is probable cause that a defendant is driving under the influence of alcohol. Sturdy v. State, 192 Ga.App. 71, 72, 383 S.E.2d 632 (1989); Whiteley v. State, 188 Ga.App. 129(1), 372 S.E.2d 296 (1988); Turrentine v. State, 176 Ga.App. 145, 146(1), 335 S.E.2d ......
-
The Harper Standard and the Alcosensor: the Road Not Traveled
...admissible as screening device). 22. Porche v. State, 217 Ga. App. 325, 325-26, 4457 S.E.2d 578, 578 (1995). 23. Sturdy v. State, 192 Ga. App. 71, 72, 383 S.E.2d 632, (1989); see State v. Holler, 224 Ga. App. 66, 69, 479 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1996) (failure admissible); Gray, 222 Ga. App. at 630......