Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

139 Ga. App. 8

228 S.E.2d 15

Martin v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided June 11, 1976

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1976-06-11

Relies on Mitchell v. State · 135 Ga. App. 212 - Nelson v. State · 129 Ga. App. 207 - Chauncey v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-06-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1993

12 state decisions

90197619801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Clark, Judge.

¶1 Defendant was charged by accusation with driving under the influence of alcohol. He was convicted in his trial before a jury and now appeals. Held:

¶2 1. Defendant correctly argues that the absence of an affidavit, upon which an accusation must be based, rendered the criminal proceedings null and void. "A valid affidavit is essential to support an accusation and without such an affidavit the whole trial is a nullity.” Chauncey v. State, 129 Ga. App. 207, 208 (199 SE2d 391). The great Logan Bleckley described the situation in this colorful language: "A valid affidavit being wanting, the bottom is knocked out of the case. It is a tub with only staves and hoops, and will hold nothing.” Scroggins v. State, 55 Ga. *9 380, 382. Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed.

Submitted June 7, 1976 Decided June 11, 1976. Guy B. Scott, Jr., for appellant. Ken Stula, Solicitor, for appellee.

¶3 2. The trial judge correctly refused to suppress the results of the blood alcohol test. The arresting officer testified that immediately after the blood test was administered, defendant was informed of his right to have another test performed at certain named hospitals or by a person of his own choosing. The requisites of Code Ann. § 68A-902.1, as elucidated in Nelson v. State, 135 Ga. App. 212 (217 SE2d 450), were clearly satisfied here.

¶4 3. Defendant made a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case. "In reviewing the overruling of a motion for a directed verdict the proper standard to be utilized by the appellate court is the 'any evidence’ test. [Cit.] Applying that standard to the evidence in this case, we find that the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for directed verdict.” Mitchell v. State, 236 Ga. 251, 257 (223 SE2d 650).

¶5 4. Defendant’s remaining enumerations are without merit and do not warrant discussion.

¶6 Judgment reversed.

Bell, C. J., and Stolz, J., concur.
/139/gaapp/8 · .json · Public domain