Jackson does not contend in this appeal that the results of his blood test should be suppressed because an unqualified person drew his blood for the purpose of testing it for drugs. See Head v. State, 246 Ga. 360, 363 (5), 271 S.E.2d 452 (1980) (stating "legislature is authorized to classify and treat alcohol differently from other drugs and defendant cannot complain if drug users are not entitled to have qualified persons conduct the tests"). Compare Carr v. State, 222 Ga.App. 776, 777–778 (1), 476 S.E.2d 75 (1996) (stating in dicta that blood drawn for purpose of determining alcohol and drug content must meet "qualified person" requirement of OCGA § 40–6–392 (a) (2) ).
Exceptions to this rule permit evidence of independent crimes committed by the defendant to be admitted for the limited purposes of showing identity, motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind and/or course of conduct. Head v. State, 246 Ga. 360, 364 ( 271 S.E.2d 452) (1980). There are two conditions to admissibility.
Once the identity of the defendant is shown to be the same as that of the perpetrator of an independent crime of sufficient similarity that proof of that crime tends to prove the offense charged, evidence of the independent crime may be introduced to show identity, motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind and course of conduct. Williams v. State, 251 Ga. 749 ( 312 S.E.2d 40) (1983); Head v. State, 246 Ga. 360 ( 271 S.E.2d 452) (1980); Hamilton v. State, 239 Ga. 72 ( 235 S.E.2d 515) (1977). Identity of the appellant as the perpetrator of both incidents was shown.
" Head v. State, 246 Ga. 360 (7) ( 271 S.E.2d 452) (1980), relied on by the defendant, is inapposite as it refers to the admissibility of independent evidence of separate crimes rather than statements by the defendant himself which are part of an incriminating statement relevant to the crime on trial. We find no error.
It follows that the failure to hear evidence on a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence outside of the presence of the jury should not be per se reversible error either. 4. It can also be said that the Court of Appeals' holding in this case is inconsistent with numerous cases applying the Johnson v. State nonconstitutional-error rule in determining whether the improper admission of evidence is reversible. See, e.g., Head v. State, 246 Ga. 360 (9) ( 271 S.E.2d 452) (1980); Drake v. State, 245 Ga. 798 (3) ( 267 S.E.2d 237) (1980); Herron v. State, 155 Ga. App. 791 (2) ( 272 S.E.2d 756) (1980); Kirkland v. State, 141 Ga. App. 664 ( 234 S.E.2d 133) (1977). In the seminal case of Johnson v. State, 238 Ga. 59, 61 ( 230 S.E.2d 869) (1976), we adopted as the standard for determining nonconstitutional error in criminal cases whether it is "highly probable that the error did not contribute to the judgment."
The trial court did not err in granting Greater Georgia Life Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment. Head v. State, 246 Ga. 360, 362(3) ( 271 S.E.2d 452) (1980).Prine v. State, 237 Ga. App. 679, 680(2)(a) ( 515 S.E.2d 425) (1999).
Independent evidence of appellant's prior convictions for those offenses was otherwise admitted as similar transactions. See Division 3. Head v. State, 246 Ga. 360, 363 (7) ( 271 S.E.2d 452) (1980); Hester v. State, supra at 644 (2). Accordingly, the listing of those prior offenses in the "package" was merely cumulative of that independently admitted similar transaction evidence.
Although Bynum was a civil case, we see no reason to distinguish it on that basis because OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) by its terms applies equally to civil and criminal actions, and OCGA § 24-3-14 regularly has been applied in criminal trials. E.g., Head v. State, 246 Ga. 360, 365-366 (11) ( 271 S.E.2d 452) (1980). Accordingly, we find the trial court properly admitted the results of the blood test administered by the hospital.
Evidence of a similar crime is admissible to show identity, motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind, and course of conduct. Head v. State, 246 Ga. 360, 364 ( 271 S.E.2d 452) (1980). It is admissible to show the defendant's lustful disposition and to corroborate the victim's testimony.
Evidence of a similar crime is admissible to show identity, motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind, and course of conduct. Head v. State, 246 Ga. 360, 364 ( 271 S.E.2d 452) (1980). It is admissible to show the defendant's lustful disposition and to corroborate the victim's testimony.