Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

173 Ga. App. 494

326 S.E.2d 849

Bostic v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 15, 1985

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1985-02-15

Relies on Harper v. State · 143 Ga. App. 55 - Cornett v. Agee

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2011

18 state decisions

601985199020002010decided

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 →

Deen, Presiding Judge,

¶1dissenting.

¶2The majority opinion seems to take judicial notice of the fact that cocaine responds to the Marquis reagent and Mecke’s test and that it can be identified by chromatography and spectrophotometric tests.

¶3While this court can and has taken judicial notice of scientific knowledge of which the trial judge did not first notice, Cornett v. Agee, 143 Ga. App. 55, 56 (237 SE2d 522) (1977), the knowledge in this cited case, however, was of the two best known laws of physics, the law of entropy and conservation (2nd and 1st laws of thermodynamics). This type scientific knowledge is of the highest quality of exact science which no one questions and meets the rigid verifiable certainty and laws of nature requirements of Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519 (292 SE2d 389) (1982). The Marquis reagent, Mecke, chromatography and spectrophotometric tests, in our opinion, have not attained the verifiable certainty status allowing us to judicially notice it as a matter of fact or law.

¶4We must reverse this case for retrial so that the trial court can initially determine the admissibility of the particular tests under the verifiable certainty requirements of Harper, supra. The trial court has the initial responsibility to pass on these questions. Then this court may subsequently determine whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion as to the admissibility issues.

¶5I must respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Judge Carley concurs in the judgment of this dissent only.

/173/gaapp/494 · .json · Public domain