From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Causey

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Oct 20, 1994
449 S.E.2d 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)




D.U.I. Gwinnett State Court. Before Judge Cook.

Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor, Richard E. Thomas, Assistant Solicitor, for appellant. Robert W. Chestney, for appellee.

The state charged Ricky Causey with driving under the influence of alcohol. Causey moved in limine to exclude evidence of his breath test results because the arresting police officer gave him an erroneous implied consent warning. Causey argued the officer's warning improperly led him to believe the state could suspend his Texas driver's license, not merely his privilege of driving in Georgia, if he refused to take the test, and the officer failed to inform him he could have an independent breath test administered by a qualified person of his own choosing. The trial court granted the motion only on the ground that the officer misinformed Causey his Texas driver's license could be suspended if he refused to take the breath test. See Deckard v. State, 210 Ga. App. 421 ( 436 S.E.2d 536) (1993). The state appeals from the court's ruling. See OCGA § 5-7-1 (4); compare State v. Brown, 185 Ga. App. 701 ( 365 S.E.2d 865) (1988).

The state contends the court erred in granting the motion because the officer did not give a misleading warning that Causey's driver's license could actually be suspended. Even if we assume, without deciding, that the state's contention is correct, the trial court's grant of the motion in limine must still be affirmed. "A judgment correct for any reason will be affirmed." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Webb v. State, 176 Ga. App. 576, 578 ( 336 S.E.2d 838) (1985). Here, the court's ruling is correct because the implied consent warning given by the officer was insufficient for the other reason asserted by Causey in his motion in limine.

"OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) sets forth guidelines for the admissibility of evidence of the amount of alcohol ... in a person's bodily fluids, as determined by a chemical analysis of [those] fluids." Clapsaddle v. State, 208 Ga. App. 840, 841 (1) ( 432 S.E.2d 262) (1993). OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (3) provides: "The person tested may have a physician or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer." (Emphasis supplied.) At the time of arrest, the officer must advise the arrested person of this right to have an independent test. OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (4); Perano v. State, 250 Ga. 704, 708 ( 300 S.E.2d 668) (1983). "Failure to give the advice renders the results of the state-administered test inadmissible in evidence. [Cits.]" State v. Peters, 211 Ga. App. 755, 756 ( 440 S.E.2d 515) (1994).

In the instant case, the officer told Causey: "After submitting to the required testing, you are entitled to additional chemical tests at your own expense." The state argues this advice is adequate under OCGA § 40-6-392 because the officer is not required to give a verbatim recitation of the statute. It is true that "[a] defendant is not entitled to a warning which tracks the exact language of the implied consent statute." (Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Pryor v. State, 182 Ga. App. 79, 80 (2) ( 354 S.E.2d 690) (1987); Howard v. Cofer, 150 Ga. App. 579, 580 (2) ( 258 S.E.2d 195) (1979). Nevertheless, the warning given in the current case was deficient, not because it failed to track the exact language of the statute, but because it completely failed to inform Causey that he could choose his own qualified person to administer the additional test.

"To accept the State's arguments, we must first find that the `of his own choosing' language in OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (3) is superfluous. This we refuse to do. We do not believe substantial compliance means that it is permissible to ignore completely the `particulars' of the laws of this state or that it is permissible to ignore statutory requirements as long as no harm is shown. `The ... requirement is that when the State seeks to prove the violation by evidence of a chemical test, the State has the burden of demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirements.' [Cit.]" State v. Hughes, 181 Ga. App. 464, 467 ( 352 S.E.2d 643) (1987). The state has not met this burden in the instant case. Because the implied consent warning given to Causey failed to inform him he could have an additional test administered by a qualified person of his own choosing, the results of the state-administered breath test are inadmissible. See Nelson v. State, 135 Ga. App. 212 ( 217 S.E.2d 450) (1975). The trial court's grant of the motion to exclude evidence of the test results must therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Beasley, P. J., and Andrews, J., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Causey

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Oct 20, 1994
449 S.E.2d 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)
Case details for

State v. Causey

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE v. CAUSEY

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Oct 20, 1994


449 S.E.2d 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)
449 S.E.2d 639

Citing Cases

State v. O'Donnell

Prior to giving defendant the test, Moore read him an implied consent warning; but it was a version of the…

State v. Adebogun

The trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress the results of a state-administered breath test, based…