Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Smith v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 16, 2001No. A01A0052Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPope, Presiding Judge

I fully concur with Division 2 of the majority opinion but dissent to Division 1.

It is true that after a defendant requests an independent chemical test of his blood the police officer must make “ ‘a reasonable effort to accommodate the accused who seeks an independent test.’ [Cit.]” State v. Button, 206 Ga. App. 673, 674 (426 SE2d 194) (1992). And it is also the law that the officer may not mislead the defendant by stating or implying that bonding out of jail is a prerequisite to the independent blood test. State v. Terry, 236 Ga. App. 248 (511 SE2d 608) (1999). But if the defendant is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. TerryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1999
  2. State v. ButtonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1992
  3. Thornhill v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1992
  4. Banks v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API