Hulsey v. State, 225 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Hulsey v. State, 225 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Carswell v. State (gactapp, 1984-07-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carswell v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
Not even “substantial compliance with the provision as to additional tests [will] compensate for the total failure to advise the defendant at any time of his right to a [chemical] analysis.” Hulsey v. State, 138 Ga. App. 221, 222 ( 225 SE2d 752 ) (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lubin
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
See Nelson v. State, 135 Ga. App. 212, 214 ( 217 SE2d 450 ); Hulsey v. State, 138 Ga. App. 221, 222 ( 225 SE2d 752 ); Torley v. State, 141 Ga. App. 366 (1) ( 233 SE2d 476 ); Garrett v. Department of Public Safety, 237 Ga. 413, 415 ( 228 SE2d 812 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Johnston
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
See State v. Laycock, 151 Ga. App. 145, 146 ( 259 SE2d 150 ); State v. Baker, 146 Ga. App. 608, 609 ( 247 SE2d 160 ); Hulsey v. State, 138 Ga. App. 221, 222 ( 225 SE2d 752 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1978 · confidence medium
This court in Hulsey v. State, 138 Ga. App. 221, 222 ( 225 SE2d 752 ) (1976), thusly answered the state’s contention that it had substantially complied with the law: "This begs the question; substantial compliance with the provision as to additional tests does not compensate for the total failure to advise the defendant at any time of his right to a urine analysis.” (Emphasis supplied.) The court in this case also pointed out that, even though a person is presumed to know the law, "where the statute itself provides that a person 'shall’ be advised of his rights under the law, the legisla…
discussed Cited "see" State v. Shead (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hulsey v. State, 138 Ga. App. 221, 222 ( 225 SE2d 752 ); Rogers v. State, 131 Ga. App. 136, 138 (1) ( 205 SE2d 901 ).
discussed Cited "see" Adams v. Hardison (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hulsey v. State, 138 Ga. App. 221 ( 225 SE2d 752 ); Garrett v. Dept. of Public Safety, 237 Ga. 413 (2) ( 228 SE2d 812 ), which states on p. 415:" 'The arresting officer at the time of the arrest shall advise the person arrested of his rights . . .’ (Emphasis supplied.) This cannot be interpreted to mean sometime in the future.” We are fully aware of the decisions embracing substantial compliance with certain notice requirements, but here the legislature and the Supreme Court have clearly spoken.
examined Cited "see" Thornberry v. State (4×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hulsey v. State, 138 Ga. App. 221 ( 225 SE2d 752 ) (1976); Torley v. State, 141 Ga. App. 366 (1) ( 233 SE2d 476 ) (1977).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cheevers v. Clark (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Hulsey v. State, 138 Ga. App. 221 ( 225 SE2d 752 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hulsey
v.
the State
51920.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Mar 19, 1976.
225 S.E.2d 752
1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2113
William L. Martin, for appellant., John T. Perren, District Attorney, Richard D. Allen, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Stolz, Bell, Clark.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
Stolz, Judge.

The appellant was arrested for traffic violations, given a breath test, and subsequently charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. At the time of[*222] arrest the appellant was not advised of his right to have a chemical analysis made of his urine. At the time of the breath test, the appellant was informed of his right to have additional blood and breath tests made.

Submitted March 8, 1976 Decided March 19, 1976. William L. Martin, for appellant.

This is an interlocutory appeal from the overruling of the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of his breath test. The question presented here is whether or not these results are rendered inadmissible by the failure to advise the defendant, both at the time of his arrest and at any time subsequent thereto, of his right to the three types of chemical tests set forth in The Uniform Rules of the Road, viz., blood, urine and breath. Code Ann. § 68A-902.1.

"Ordinarily, a person is presumed to know the law and his rights secured thereby. Carnes v. State, 115 Ga. App. 387, 393 (154 SE2d 781); Felton v. State, 93 Ga. App. 48, 49 (90 SE2d 607). But where the statute itself provides that a person 'shall’ be advised of his rights under the law, the legislature obviously meant to abrogate this presumption and replace it with the requirement that notice be given.

"It is also logical that the legislature intended that this right be made known to the defendant at the time of his arrest in order that he may, if he so chooses, challenge the accuracy of the chemical test administered by the state at the only time such a challenge would be meaningful.” Nelson v. State, 135 Ga. App. 212, 213 (217 SE2d 450). The state’s contention is that, by giving the defendant notice of the right to have additional blood and breath tests administered, it substantially complied with the law. This begs the question; substantial compliance with the provision as to additional tests does not compensate for the total failure to advise the defendant at any time of his right to a urine analysis. The defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the breath test should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, C. J., and Clark, J., concur. [*223] John T. Perren, District Attorney, Richard D. Allen, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.