Cottrell v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Smiley

    301 Ga. App. 778 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 5 times
    Affirming a trial court's suppression of test results for, among other things, failing to turn over the testing device's source code

    Pretermitting whether the requested items are required by law to be produced, we find no error in the trial court's grant of the motion to suppress. 287 Ga.App. 89, 651 S.E.2d 444 (2007). Id. at 91(1), 651 S.E.2d 444.

  2. Stetz v. State

    687 S.E.2d 839 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 3 times
    In Stetz v. State, 301 Ga.App. 458, 461, 687 S.E.2d 839 (2009), this Court defined the scope of " full information" to which a DUI defendant is entitled under OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(4) when the test of a person's blood-alcohol concentration is determined by an Intoxilyzer machine.

    (Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Cottrell v. State, 287 Ga. App. 89, 90 (1) ( 651 SE2d 444) (2007), citing Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222, 224 (2) ( 498 SE2d 262) (1998). The gas chromatography test "generates a printout containing a graph and numerical data that is interpreted by the chemist."

  3. Eaton v. State

    668 S.E.2d 770 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 61 ( 230 SE2d 869) (1976); Schauver v. State, 146 Ga. App. 701 ( 247 SE2d 228) (1978). By failing to raise the issue at trial, Eaton waived her claim that the absence of the other Crime lab employees violated her Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against her. Cottrell v. State, 287 Ga. App. 89, 92 ( 651 SE2d 444) (2007). Judgment affirmed. Ruffin, P. J., and Bernes, J., concur.

  4. Hills v. State

    663 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 11 times

    OCGA § 17-16-23 (b). See Cottrell v. State, 287 Ga. App. 89, 91 (1) ( 651 SE2d 444) (2007). Contrary to Hills' argument, In re Commr. of Public Safety does not require a different result.

  5. Massey v. State

    331 Ga. App. 430 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 3 times

    Price, 269 Ga. at 224, 498 S.E.2d 262 ; Townsend v. State, 236 Ga.App. 530, 532, 511 S.E.2d 587 (1999). The production of discovery granted under OCGA § 40–6–392(a)(4) may be obtained by subpoena or by a request directed to the State. Cottrell v. State, 287 Ga.App. 89, 90–91, 651 S.E.2d 444 (2007). But discovery pursuant to OCGA § 40–6–392(a)(4) is expressly limited by the terms of subsection (a)(4) to “the person who shall submit to a chemical test or tests at the request of a law enforcement officer....” As set forth above, OCGA § 40–6–392 is part of the statutory scheme for implied consent chemical testing, which makes clear that “the person who shall submit to a chemical test or tests at the request of a law enforcement officer,” as set forth in subsection (a)(4), refers to a driver who submits at the time of arrest to a chemical test requested by the arresting officer pursuant to the implied consent provisions of OCGA § 40–5–55.