From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Box v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
May 26, 1988
370 S.E.2d 28 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)

Summary

In Box v. State, 187 Ga. App. 260 (370 S.E.2d 28) (1988), this court found, in factual circumstances closely similar both to Durden and to the instant case, that the omission of the actual figures was fatal to the prosecution's case.

Summary of this case from Camarata v. State

Opinion

76573.

DECIDED MAY 26, 1988.

D. U. I. Clarke State Court. Before Judge Lawrence.

Christopher P. Brooks, for appellant.

Kenneth Stula, Solicitor, Dean C. Broome, Jr., Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.


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 S.E.2d 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.

DECIDED MAY 26, 1988.


Summaries of

Box v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
May 26, 1988
370 S.E.2d 28 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)

In Box v. State, 187 Ga. App. 260 (370 S.E.2d 28) (1988), this court found, in factual circumstances closely similar both to Durden and to the instant case, that the omission of the actual figures was fatal to the prosecution's case.

Summary of this case from Camarata v. State
Case details for

Box v. State

Case Details

Full title:BOX v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: May 26, 1988

Citations

370 S.E.2d 28 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)
370 S.E.2d 28

Citing Cases

Kerr v. State

Callahan, a forensic toxicologist, analyzed the urine specimen and testified that she found marijuana…

Carson v. State

We do not find Durden to be controlling. In Durden and its progeny ( Camarata v. State, 188 Ga. App. 41 ( 371…