 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kendrick v. State10/14/1999
missible evidence without expert testimony supporting its verifiable certainty. There was no such expert testimony in this case. So even if a proper business record foundation were laid, the disciplinary report documenting the administration of the ontrack test and its results would contain no probative evidence that Kendrick violated the terms of his probation. But Kendrick adopted the statement that he tested positive for cocaine in violation of Diversion Center rules by pleading guilty to the infraction, thereby rendering the document competent evidence as an admission against the penal interest of a party. OCGA § 24-3-31 ; Howard v. State, 227 Ga. App. 5, 6 (2), 7 (488 SE2d 489).
3. The disciplinary report for alcohol infraction, Exhibit S-2, recites:
I Officer Ron Pitts, was on duty as Control Room Officer, when resident Kendrick . . . returned to the Center from work with the smell of alcohol on his person[.] I administered an alcosensor III test to resident Kendrick which registered .04 positive for alcohol. I ask resident if he had been drinking alcohol and resident Kendrick stated he had [drunk] one beer before returning to the Center. He is in violation of Center Rule C17 using unauthorized drugs or alcohol.
Kendrick also signed this report, voluntarily pleading guilty to the infraction.
This disciplinary report recites facts rather than opinions, and so does not suffer from the defect of those disciplinary reports considered in Finch v. Caldwell, 155 Ga. App. 813 (273 SE2d 216). We need not, however, determine whether this disciplinary report would be admissible at a probation revocation as a business record under Oldham v. State, 205 Ga. App. 268, 270 (422 SE2d 38) in order to show the unquantified presence of alcohol in a Diversion Center resident, or whether the Alcosensor III test results indicating a blood alcohol level of .04 grams percent must be excluded under Adams v. State, 217 Ga. App. 706, 707 (2) (459 SE2d 182) for being inadmissible opinions and Conclusions or unconfronted hearsay. Defendant's signed guilty plea is sufficient to render the document competent proof of the facts recited, as an admission against interest by a party. OCGA § 24-3-31; Howard v. State, 227 Ga. App. 5, 6 (2), 7, supra.
Judgment affirmed. Johnson, C. J., and Phipps, J., concur in the judgment only.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|