 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Keller v. State12/1/2004
documents, Keller reiterated:
I object to State's Exhibit 3 on the grounds that it violates the defendant's right to confrontation under the 6th Amendment, as well as applicable portions of the Georgia Constitution, and it has been amended by a witness who is not present in court."
The majority claims that these objections were insufficient to raise the issue of whether the document was certified. But Keller's objection fairly raises the relevant issue.
Hearsay objections and objections based on the failure of the State to comply with an exception to the hearsay rule arise from the rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause embodied in the Sixth Amendment. See generally Miller v. State, 266 Ga. 850, 853 (472 SE2d 74) (1996); Hill v. State, 223 Ga. App. 493, 494-495 (478 SE2d 406) (1996). OCGA § 24-3-17, which was invoked by Keller, was enacted "to amend Article 1 of Chapter 3 of Title 24 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions concerning hearsay evidence . . . ." (Emphasis added.) 1988 Ga. L. 470, § 2.
OCGA § 40-5-2 (d) (1), which is applicable here, is similar. It provides that Department of Motor Vehicle Safety records, when properly certified, "shall be admissible as evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding as proof of the contents thereof." See also Shapiro v. State, 233 Ga. App. 620, 621-622 (504 SE2d 719) (1998). Thus, Keller objected on grounds sufficient to cover the attempted admission of an uncertified document that the State attempted to introduce by way of an exception to the hearsay rule. Accordingly, I would find that Keller sufficiently objected to State's Exhibit 3.
Page 1 2 3 4 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|