Smith v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Garrison v. State

    905 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    In other cases where any evidentiary error was found to be harmless, courts have considered among other things whether the defendant’s eyes were red or watery, speech was slurred or incoherent, and movements were sluggish and stumbling. See State v. Robertson, 369 Ga. App. 707, 712-714 (1), 894 S.E.2d 431 (2023); Smith v. State, 338 Ga. App. 635, 641 (5), 791 S.E.2d 418 (2016); Yarber v. State, 337 Ga. App. 40, 45, 785 S.E.2d 677 (2016). But here, no witness testified as to the presence of these traits, and Garrison did not appear to exhibit these characteristics in the nearly 30-minute dash camera video recording, which was played for the jury.

  2. State v. De la Paz

    899 S.E.2d 447 (Ga. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    See Sapp v. State, 184 Ga. App. 527, 527 (2), 362 S.E.2d 406 (1987). See also Smith v. State, 338 Ga. App. 635, 640 (5), 791 S.E.2d 418 (2016) ("OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) establishes a single crime of driving in a prohibited condition and subsections (1) through (5) merely define different ways of committing that one crime.") (citation omitted).

  3. Canelas v. State

    813 S.E.2d 170 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Holding evidence defendant was hospitalized following single-vehicle accident and that officer told defendant he was "under arrest for [driving under the influence] less safe" before requesting that he submit to chemical test was sufficient to support trial court's determination that defendant was under arrest within scope of implied-consent statute

    Lastly, the trial court imposed a sentence of twelve months probation for each count of the accusation, to be served concurrently. Because the DUI convictions were predicated on the same conduct, they merged, and the trial court erred in imposing sentence on both, as conceded by the State. Smith v. State , 338 Ga. App. 635, 640-641 (5), 791 S.E.2d 418 (2016) ; Fowler v. State , 294 Ga. App. 864, 868-869 (3), 670 S.E.2d 448 (2008) ; Schlanger v. State , 290 Ga. App. 407, 415 (8), 659 S.E.2d 823 (2008) (physical precedent only); Partridge v. State , 266 Ga. App. 305, 306, 596 S.E.2d 778 (2004). Accordingly, we must vacate Canelas’s sentence and remand this case to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

  4. MacMaster v. State

    809 S.E.2d 478 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 7 times
    Recognizing that an affirmative response to the implied consent notice does not automatically mean actual voluntary consent to a blood test

    Additionally, our Supreme Court and this Court have previously rejected Confrontation Clause challenges relating to State-administered chemical tests. See Rackoff v. State , 281 Ga. 306, 309 (2), 637 S.E.2d 706 (2006) (introduction of inspection certificate for breath testing machine did not violate Confrontation Clause); Smith v. State , 338 Ga. App. 635, 639 (4), 791 S.E.2d 418 (2016) (State not required under Confrontation Clause to name inspector of breath testing machine as a witness); Phillips v. State , 324 Ga. App. 728, 733, 751 S.E.2d 526 (2013) (Confrontation Clause does not apply to machines like a breath testing machine). In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress or motion in limine, appellate courts construe the record in the light most favorable to the trial court's factual findings and judgment, and "all relevant evidence of record, including evidence introduced at trial, as well as evidence introduced at the motion to suppress hearing, may be considered."

  5. People v. Ambrose

    506 P.3d 57 (Colo. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Indeed, Mr. Ambrose has not cited, nor have we found, any case from any jurisdiction holding that certificates similar to the I-9000 working order certificate are testimonial and subject to the Confrontation Clause. See Smith v. State , 338 Ga.App. 635, 791 S.E.2d 418, 422 (2016) ("inspection certificates are not testimonial in nature"); Jones v. State , 982 N.E.2d 417, 428 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (reaffirming prior precedents and concluding such certificates are "nontestimonial"); State v. Benson , 295 Kan. 1061, 287 P.3d 927, 932 (2012) (holding "that [a] certificate of calibration is not a testimonial statement"); State v. Britt , 283 Neb. 600, 813 N.W.2d 434, 437 (2012) (affirming that certificate by analyst who prepared breath test simulator solution used to test the device was not testimonial and therefore not subject to confrontation analysis); State v. Dial , 998 N.E.2d 821, 827 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (a certificate of a breath test machine using a new bottle of ethyl alcohol was not testimonial); Anderson v. State , 317 P.3d 1108, 1122 (Wyo. 2014) (annual certification of breathalyzer machines is not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause). ¶ 83 We are also not persuaded that Barry requires a different result, for three reasons.

  6. People v. Ambrose

    490 P.3d 822 (Colo. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    ¶ 83 Indeed, Mr. Ambrose has not cited, nor have we found, any case from any jurisdiction holding that certificates similar to the I-9000 working order certificate are testimonial and subject to the Confrontation Clause. See Smith v. State , 338 Ga.App. 635, 791 S.E.2d 418, 422 (2016) ("inspection certificates are not testimonial in nature"); Jones v. State , 982 N.E.2d 417, 428 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (reaffirming prior precedents and concluding such certificates are "nontestimonial"); State v. Benson , 295 Kan. 1061, 287 P.3d 927, 932 (2012) (holding "that [a] certificate of calibration is not a testimonial statement"); State v. Britt , 283 Neb. 600, 813 N.W.2d 434, 437 (2012) (affirming that certificate by analyst who prepared breath test simulator solution used to test the device was not testimonial and therefore not subject to confrontation analysis); State v. Dial , 998 N.E.2d 821, 827 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (a certificate of a breath test machine using a new bottle of ethyl alcohol was not testimonial); Anderson v. State , 317 P.3d 1108, 1122 (Wyo. 2014) (annual certification of breathalyzer machines is not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause). ¶ 84 We are also not persuaded that Barry requires a different result, for three reasons.