McAllister v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Wetzel v. State

    A14A0896 (Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2014)

    Accordingly, this issue was not preserved, and this Court cannot review this argument. See McAllister v. State, 325 Ga. App. 583, 586 (2) (754 SE2d 376) (2014) (failure to obtain a distinct ruling on a constitutional issue presents nothing for this Court to review when enumerated as error on appeal); Bain v. State, 258 Ga. App. 440, 445-446 (3) (574 SE2d 590) (2002) (same). Compare with Rouse v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 271 Ga. 726, 727-728 (1) (524 SE2d 455) (1999).

  2. Commonwealth v. Bohigian

    486 Mass. 209 (Mass. 2020)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding BAC test results improperly were admitted where defendant did not consent to blood draw and remanding for new trial

    See R.I. Gen. Laws § 31–27–2.9(a), inserted by R.I. St. 2009, c. 09-210, § 2; McAllister v. State, 325 Ga. App. 583, 585, 754 S.E.2d 376 (2014), citing Ga. Code Ann. § 40-5-67.1(d.1). Alaska enacted a new statute allowing for chemical testing absent consent if a defendant were arrested for OUI after an accident resulting in death or physical injury to another.

  3. In re N. C.

    870 S.E.2d 569 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that mother's contention that denial of visitation violated her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution could not be reviewed on appeal because she failed to raise the issue with the juvenile court and obtain a ruling

    Even if the mother had raised this constitutional issue below, her failure to obtain a ruling from the juvenile court precludes appellate review. See McAllister v. State , 325 Ga. App. 583, 586 (2), 754 S.E.2d 376 (2014). 5.

  4. Zarate-Martinez v. Echemendia

    332 Ga. App. 381 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Id. at 556(6), 690 S.E.2d 145. See also McAllister v. State, 325 Ga.App. 583, 586(2), 754 S.E.2d 376 (2014) (failure to obtain distinct ruling on constitutional challenge to a statute precludes appellate review).--------

  5. Metzner v. State

    2015 Ark. 222 (Ark. 2015)   Cited 14 times
    In Metzner v. State, 2015 Ark. 222, 462 S.W.3d 650, our supreme court stated that the collection and testing of a person's blood constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and thus, either a warrant must be obtained or an exception to the warrant requirement must apply.

    The decision in Collier was abrogated by the Georgia Legislature the following year by an amendment to Georgia's implied-consent statute. See McAllister v. State, 325 Ga.App. 583, 754 S.E.2d 376 (2014).Courts in other jurisdictions whose statutes contain comparable language have reached the opposite result.

  6. McKibben v. State

    340 Ga. App. 89 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the denial of a defendant's motion to suppress blood-test results, even though the defendant claimed that the language of the implied-consent notice made him feel as though he had no choice but to consent when the defendant answered affirmatively to the question posed by the implied-consent notice, he never attempted to change that answer prior to testing, he did not appear to be impaired to the extent that he did not understand the question, he did not object to the test, and the officer did not force him to take it

    Brooks v. State, 285 Ga.App. 624, 626, 647 S.E.2d 328 (2007).McAllister v. State, 325 Ga.App. 583, 583, 754 S.E.2d 376 (2014).State v. Fulghum, 261 Ga.App. 594, 594 (1), 583 S.E.2d 278 (2003) (citation and punctuation omitted).

  7. Massey v. State

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

    1 makes clear that, if the driver refuses the arresting officer's request to submit to chemical testing pursuant to OCGA § 40–5–55, nothing in the code section precludes the officer from otherwise obtaining evidence of a violation of OCGA § 40–6–391 “by voluntary consent or a search warrant....” Because Massey refused the officer's request to submit to chemical testing pursuant to OCGA § 40–5–55(a), the officer properly sought and obtained a search warrant to forcibly take blood from Massey for the purpose of testing the blood by gas chromatography at the State Crime Lab pursuant to OCGA § 40–6–392(a)(1)(A) for evidence of an alcohol concentration in violation of OCGA § 40–6–391. McAllister v. State, 325 Ga.App. 583, 585, 754 S.E.2d 376 (2014). The discovery provisions of OCGA § 40–6–392(a)(4), broadly grant access to “full information concerning the test,” for alcohol or drugs in a person's blood, urine, breath, or other bodily substance, and are “consistent with the broad right of cross-examination embodied in [OCGA § 24–6–611(b) ].” Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222, 224, 498 S.E.2d 262 (1998).