Box v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Box v. State

370 S.E.2d 28, 187 Ga. App. 260, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 618

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 26, 1988

Docket76573

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 370 S.E.2d 28 (Box 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

Box v. State, 370 S.E.2d 28, 187 Ga. App. 260, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Presiding Judge.

Appellant Box was accused, tried, and convicted of violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (2), driving while under the influence of a drug to a degree which made him a less safe driver than he would have been but for having used the drug. He appeals from the judgment, enumerating as error the trial court’s denial of his motion that the results of the chemical tests administered to him pursuant to OCGA §§ 40-5-55 and 40-6-392 be ruled inadmissible because the crime laboratory report on the tests did not state on its face the exact numerical quantity of the drugs (marijuana or its metabolites and cocaine or its metabolites) found in his blood and urine. Held:

In Durden v. State, 187 Ga. App. 154 (369 SE2d 764) (1988), this court held, on facts virtually identical with those of the instant case, that the State had failed to comply with the requirements of OCGA § 17-7-211 in that the written scientific reports provided to defendant (identical in form to those provided to appellant Box) omitted the actual test results, and that the defense was prejudiced thereby. Durden is controlling on the issue raised, and we are therefore bound to reverse the judgment below.

Judgment reversed.

Carley and Sognier, JJ., concur. *261 Decided May 26, 1988. Christopher P. Brooks, for appellant. Kenneth Stula, Solicitor, Dean C. Broome, Jr., Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.

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

Deen, Presiding Judge.

Appellant Box was accused, tried, and convicted of violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (2), driving while under the influence of a drug to a degree which made him a less safe driver than he would have been but for having used the drug. He appeals from the judgment, enumerating as error the trial court’s denial of his motion that the results of the chemical tests administered to him pursuant to OCGA §§ 40-5-55 and 40-6-392 be ruled inadmissible because the crime laboratory report on the tests did not state on its face the exact numerical quantity of the drugs (marijuana or its metabolites and cocaine or its metabolites) found in his blood and urine. Held:

In Durden v. State, 187 Ga. App. 154 (369 SE2d 764) (1988), this court held, on facts virtually identical with those of the instant case, that the State had failed to comply with the requirements of OCGA § 17-7-211 in that the written scientific reports provided to defendant (identical in form to those provided to appellant Box) omitted the actual test results, and that the defense was prejudiced thereby. Durden is controlling on the issue raised, and we are therefore bound to reverse the judgment below.

Judgment reversed.

Carley and Sognier, JJ., concur. *261 Decided May 26, 1988. Christopher P. Brooks, for appellant. Kenneth Stula, Solicitor, Dean C. Broome, Jr., Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 S.E.2d 28, 187 Ga. App. 260, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/box-v-state-gactapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack