To the extent that Riley argues it was error to order a new trial without the benefit of the transcripts from the first trial, and that he was entitled to free transcripts to prepare for the second trial, he cannot show any harm or prejudice. A trial court may rule on a motion for new trial without the benefit of the transcripts. See OCGA ยง 5-5-40 (c) ; Holmes v. State , 180 Ga. App. 787, 788 (4), 350 S.E.2d 497 (1986) ; see also Uniform Superior Court Rule 41.1 (trial court may hear motion for new trial prior to preparation of transcripts). Moreover, a review of the transcript from the second trial shows that counsel was able to question witnesses about prior testimony to bring out any inconsistencies even without the benefit of the transcript from the first trial.
OCGA ยง 40-5-55 (b); Rogers v. State, [ 180 Ga. App. 310 ( 348 S.E.2d 888) (1986)]; Rogers v. State, 163 Ga. App. 641, 643 (1) ( 295 S.E.2d 140) (1982)." Holmes v. State, 180 Ga. App. 787, 788 (1) ( 350 S.E.2d 497) (1986). Lankford v. State, 204 Ga. App. 405, 406 (1) ( 419 S.E.2d 498) (1992).
In summation, none of the points argued by defendant amounts to evidence of tampering or cast sufficient doubt on the identity of the exhibits to amount to a broken chain of custody. See generally Boyer v. State, 178 Ga. App. 372, 373 (1) ( 343 S.E.2d 146); Hubert v. State, 181 Ga. App. 684 ( 353 S.E.2d 612); Cook v. State, 255 Ga. 565, 568 (4) ( 340 S.E.2d 843); Williams v. State, 181 Ga. App. 49, 51 (3) ( 351 S.E.2d 207); Holmes v. State, 180 Ga. App. 787, 788 (3) ( 350 S.E.2d 497); Houston v. State, 180 Ga. App. 267, 268 (3) ( 349 S.E.2d 228). 2.
(Citations and indention omitted.) Holmes v. State, 180 Ga. App. 787, 788 ( 350 S.E.2d 497) (1986). 2.
1. Burnette contends that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury that the police officer would have been authorized to have a blood alcohol test performed on Burnette when Burnette was unconscious. If a driver of a vehicle is unconscious and therefore incapable of refusing to consent to a blood alcohol test, a police officer may have a blood sample taken while the person is unconscious. OCGA ยง 40-5-55 (b); Holmes v. State, 180 Ga. App. 787 ( 350 S.E.2d 497) (1986). However, in this case, it was uncontroverted that at the time the police officer advised Burnette of his informed consent rights and requested him to submit to a blood test, Burnette was conscious.
Cunningham v. State, 255 Ga. 35 (5) ( 334 S.E.2d 656) (1985). See also Holmes v. State, 180 Ga. App. 787 (3) ( 350 S.E.2d 497) (1986). 5.