State v. Tuten

Court of Appeals of Georgia

State v. Tuten

478 S.E.2d 138, 223 Ga. App. 475, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3746, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 1099

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 15, 1996

DocketA96A2042

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 478 S.E.2d 138 (State v. Tuten) 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

State v. Tuten, 478 S.E.2d 138, 223 Ga. App. 475, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3746, 1996 Ga. App. LEXIS 1099 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Johnson, Judge.

Pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (4), the State of Georgia appeals the grant of Alton Tuten’s motion to suppress the results of a blood-alcohol test performed on an Intoxilyzer 5000 machine. The sole error enumerated in this appeal is that the trial court erred by granting the motion to suppress on the grounds that the machine had not been approved by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Division of Forensic Sciences, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, OCGA § 50-13-1 et seq.

This issue was recently considered by this Court and decided adversely to the trial court’s ruling. See Corner v. State, 223 Ga. App. 353 (477 SE2d 593) (1996). In light of that holding, the trial court’s grant of Tuten’s motion to suppress on this ground must be reversed and the case remanded.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur. [476]*476Decided October 15, 1996 Reconsideration denied November 6, 1996 Ralph T. Bowden, Jr., Solicitor, Noah H. Pines, W. Cíiff Howard, Assistant Solicitors, for appellant. Kimberly A. Dymecki, for appellee.

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