Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

AMAKER v. THE STATE.

QUILLIAN, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He appealed and the case is here for review. The only enumeration of error was that the trial judge erred in refusing, upon request, to charge the provisions of Code Ann. § 68-1625 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 575; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 70, 71) relative to a blood alcohol test and that the results of the test created certain evidentiary presumptions on the question of the defendant's intoxication. The statute provides in part: "The Director of Public Safety shall designate one or more physicians or certified hospital technicians for each county to perform such tests upon the request of any person so arrested."

In the present case the evidence revealed that the blood test was not performed by a designated specialist as prescribed by statute. Thus, under the holding in Pittman v. State, 110 Ga. App. 625 ( 139 S.E.2d 507), the evidentiary presumptions were not applicable, and the trial judge did not err in refusing to charge thereon.

Judgment affirmed. Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

SUBMITTED MARCH 5, 1968 — DECIDED APRIL 2, 1968.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

AMAKER v. STATE
(Apr 2, 1968)