Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Martin v. State

Martin v. State

228 S.E.2d 15, 139 Ga. App. 8, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1655
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 11, 1976
Docket52250
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 228 S.E.2d 15 (Martin 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
Martin v. State, 228 S.E.2d 15, 139 Ga. App. 8, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1655 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Clark, Judge.

Defendant was charged by accusation with driving under the influence of alcohol. He was convicted in his trial before a jury and now appeals. Held:

1. Defendant correctly argues that the absence of an affidavit, upon which an accusation must be based, rendered the criminal proceedings null and void. "A valid affidavit is essential to support an accusation and without such an affidavit the whole trial is a nullity.” Chauncey v. State, 129 Ga. App. 207, 208 (199 SE2d 391). The great Logan Bleckley described the situation in this colorful language: "A valid affidavit being wanting, the bottom is knocked out of the case. It is a tub with only staves and hoops, and will hold nothing.” Scroggins v. State, 55 Ga. *9 380, 382. Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed.

Submitted June 7, 1976 Decided June 11, 1976. Guy B. Scott, Jr., for appellant. Ken Stula, Solicitor, for appellee.

2. The trial judge correctly refused to suppress the results of the blood alcohol test. The arresting officer testified that immediately after the blood test was administered, defendant was informed of his right to have another test performed at certain named hospitals or by a person of his own choosing. The requisites of Code Ann. § 68A-902.1, as elucidated in Nelson v. State, 135 Ga. App. 212 (217 SE2d 450), were clearly satisfied here.

3. Defendant made a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case. "In reviewing the overruling of a motion for a directed verdict the proper standard to be utilized by the appellate court is the 'any evidence’ test. [Cit.] Applying that standard to the evidence in this case, we find that the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for directed verdict.” Mitchell v. State, 236 Ga. 251, 257 (223 SE2d 650).

4. Defendant’s remaining enumerations are without merit and do not warrant discussion.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, C. J., and Stolz, J., concur.

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

Related

Blankenship v. State
431 S.E.2d 481 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993)
State v. Scoggins
397 S.E.2d 50 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1990)
State v. Lubin
297 S.E.2d 371 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Bickley v. State
258 S.E.2d 306 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Bickley v. State
255 S.E.2d 31 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1979)
Young v. State
245 S.E.2d 866 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Maddox v. State
243 S.E.2d 636 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Huff v. State
242 S.E.2d 361 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Hunter v. State
239 S.E.2d 212 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Rayburn v. State
231 S.E.2d 383 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Gilreath v. State
230 S.E.2d 362 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Smith v. State
231 S.E.2d 91 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 S.E.2d 15, 139 Ga. App. 8, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 1655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-gactapp-1976.