Amaker v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Amaker v. State

161 S.E.2d 517, 117 Ga. App. 586, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1151

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 2, 1968

Docket43486

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 S.E.2d 517 (Amaker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amaker v. State, 161 S.E.2d 517, 117 Ga. App. 586, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1151 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He appealed and the case is here for review. The only enumeration of error was that the trial judge erred in refusing, upon request, to charge the provisions of Code Ann. § 68-1625 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 575; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 70, 71) relative to a blood alcohol test and that the results of the test created certain evidentiary presumptions on the question of the defendant’s intoxication. The statute provides in part: “The Director of Fublic Safety shall designate one or more physicians or certified hospital technicians for each county to perform such tests upon the request of any person so arrested.”

In the present case the evidence revealed that the blood test was not performed by a designated specialist as prescribed by statute. Thus, under the holding in Pittman v. State, 110 Ga. App. 625 (139 SE2d 507), the evidentiary presumptions were not applicable, and the trial judge did not err in refusing to charge thereon.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Quillian, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He appealed and the case is here for review. The only enumeration of error was that the trial judge erred in refusing, upon request, to charge the provisions of Code Ann. § 68-1625 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 575; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 70, 71) relative to a blood alcohol test and that the results of the test created certain evidentiary presumptions on the question of the defendant’s intoxication. The statute provides in part: “The Director of Fublic Safety shall designate one or more physicians or certified hospital technicians for each county to perform such tests upon the request of any person so arrested.”

In the present case the evidence revealed that the blood test was not performed by a designated specialist as prescribed by statute. Thus, under the holding in Pittman v. State, 110 Ga. App. 625 (139 SE2d 507), the evidentiary presumptions were not applicable, and the trial judge did not err in refusing to charge thereon.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E.2d 517, 117 Ga. App. 586, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amaker-v-state-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack