12 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Maloy v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Embrey’s “suspicion was not based on mere caprice or hunch, but rather on specific [facts, among others, the results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test,] that, based on his training as a certified 5 [d]rug [r]ecognition [e]xpert, led him to believe that [Baker] was under the influence of a controlled substance.” Maloy v. State, 293 Ga. App. 648, 650 (1) ( 667 SE2d 688 ) (2008). 2014Embrey’s “suspicion was not based on mere caprice or hunch, but rather on specific [facts, among others, the results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test,] that, based on his training as a certified 5 [d]rug [r]ecognition [e]xpert, led him to believe that [Baker] was under the influence of a controlled substance.” Maloy v. State, 293 Ga. App. 648, 650 (1) ( 667 SE2d 688 ) (2008). | 2 | 2 |
Belton v. Stategreen2 sentences2005(Punctuation omitted.) Belton v. State, 270 Ga. 671, 674 (4) ( 512 SE2d 614 ) (1999). 2005(Punctuation omitted.) Belton v. State, 270 Ga. 671, 674 (4) ( 512 SE2d 614 ) (1999). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ellisongreen2 sentences2024See also Hughes, supra, (officers had probable cause to believe that defendant was under the influence of some intoxicant when they had reason to believe he caused a fatal accident and he had a number of unknown pills on his person); Gilliam v. State, 295 Ga. App. 358, 359 ( 671 SE2d 859 ) (2008) disapproved in part on other grounds by Bailey v. State, 338 7 Ga. App. 428 ( 790 SE2d 98 ) (2016) (unsafe driving that caused collision coupled with odor of alcohol established probable cause that individual was driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs); State v. Ellison, 271 Ga. App. 89 2024See also Hughes, supra, (officers had probable cause to believe that defendant was under the influence of some intoxicant when they had reason to believe he caused a fatal accident and he had a number of unknown pills on his person); Gilliam v. State, 295 Ga. App. 358, 359 ( 671 SE2d 859 ) (2008) disapproved in part on other grounds by Bailey v. State, 338 7 Ga. App. 428 ( 790 SE2d 98 ) (2016) (unsafe driving that caused collision coupled with odor of alcohol established probable cause that individual was driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs); State v. Ellison, 271 Ga. App. 89 | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2024The “information contained in the affidavit [including that Haynes was the at fault driver because he drove into oncoming traffic, causing a head on, fatal collision, that he exhibited six of six clues of impairment when completing the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, and that his eyes were bloodshot and watery] establishes probable cause to believe Haynes was driving while impaired.” Taylor v. State, 337 Ga. App. 486, 489 (1) ( 788 SE2d 97 ) (2016) (attestations in affidavit that evidence showed that defendant was the driver of a car that had been involved in an automobile accident in which a 2024The “information contained in the affidavit [including that Haynes was the at fault driver because he drove into oncoming traffic, causing a head on, fatal collision, that he exhibited six of six clues of impairment when completing the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, and that his eyes were bloodshot and watery] establishes probable cause to believe Haynes was driving while impaired.” Taylor v. State, 337 Ga. App. 486, 489 (1) ( 788 SE2d 97 ) (2016) (attestations in affidavit that evidence showed that defendant was the driver of a car that had been involved in an automobile accident in which a | 1 | 1 |
Gilliam v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See also Hughes, supra, (officers had probable cause to believe that defendant was under the influence of some intoxicant when they had reason to believe he caused a fatal accident and he had a number of unknown pills on his person); Gilliam v. State, 295 Ga. App. 358, 359 ( 671 SE2d 859 ) (2008) disapproved in part on other grounds by Bailey v. State, 338 7 Ga. App. 428 ( 790 SE2d 98 ) (2016) (unsafe driving that caused collision coupled with odor of alcohol established probable cause that individual was driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs); State v. Ellison, 271 Ga. App. 89 2024See also Hughes, supra, (officers had probable cause to believe that defendant was under the influence of some intoxicant when they had reason to believe he caused a fatal accident and he had a number of unknown pills on his person); Gilliam v. State, 295 Ga. App. 358, 359 ( 671 SE2d 859 ) (2008) disapproved in part on other grounds by Bailey v. State, 338 7 Ga. App. 428 ( 790 SE2d 98 ) (2016) (unsafe driving that caused collision coupled with odor of alcohol established probable cause that individual was driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs); State v. Ellison, 271 Ga. App. 89 | 1 | 1 |
Duncan v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Duncan v. State, 305 Ga. App. 268, 272 (2) (a) (699 SE2d 341) (2010) (cited for the proposition that courts have considered whether a witness was sufficiently trained and experienced to give the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and interpret its results); Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 289-290 (1) (e) (393 SE2d 436) (1990) (cited because it “discuss[ed] problems with determination the relevant population and its importance to statistics.”) 33 have discussed TrueAllele in detail just once, in Gates v. State, 308 Ga. 238 (840 SE2d 437) (2020). 7 And all we said there was that (1) the defendan 2023See Duncan v. State, 305 Ga. App. 268, 272 (2) (a) (699 SE2d 341) (2010) (cited for the proposition that courts have considered whether a witness was sufficiently trained and experienced to give the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and interpret its results); Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 289-290 (1) (e) (393 SE2d 436) (1990) (cited because it “discuss[ed] problems with determination the relevant population and its importance to statistics.”) 33 have discussed TrueAllele in detail just once, in Gates v. State, 308 Ga. 238 (840 SE2d 437) (2020). 7 And all we said there was that (1) the defendan | 1 | 1 |
Caldwell v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Duncan v. State, 305 Ga. App. 268, 272 (2) (a) (699 SE2d 341) (2010) (cited for the proposition that courts have considered whether a witness was sufficiently trained and experienced to give the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and interpret its results); Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 289-290 (1) (e) (393 SE2d 436) (1990) (cited because it “discuss[ed] problems with determination the relevant population and its importance to statistics.”) 33 have discussed TrueAllele in detail just once, in Gates v. State, 308 Ga. 238 (840 SE2d 437) (2020). 7 And all we said there was that (1) the defendan 2023See Duncan v. State, 305 Ga. App. 268, 272 (2) (a) (699 SE2d 341) (2010) (cited for the proposition that courts have considered whether a witness was sufficiently trained and experienced to give the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and interpret its results); Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 289-290 (1) (e) (393 SE2d 436) (1990) (cited because it “discuss[ed] problems with determination the relevant population and its importance to statistics.”) 33 have discussed TrueAllele in detail just once, in Gates v. State, 308 Ga. 238 (840 SE2d 437) (2020). 7 And all we said there was that (1) the defendan | 1 | 1 |
State v. Damatogreen2 sentences2018He cites to cases in which we have affirmed an order granting a motion to suppress where the evidence showed consumption of alcohol but did not show the effect of that consumption on the defendant, that is, that he was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of driving safely.7 7 State v. Encinas, 302 Ga. App. 334, 336-337 ( 691 SE2d 257 ) (2010) (An officer did not have probable cause to arrest a driver for DUI, even though the driver exuded the odor of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and refused to take a state-administered chemical test, where the driver showed 2018He cites to cases in which we have affirmed an order granting a motion to suppress where the evidence showed consumption of alcohol but did not show the effect of that consumption on the defendant, that is, that he was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of driving safely.7 7 State v. Encinas, 302 Ga. App. 334, 336-337 ( 691 SE2d 257 ) (2010) (An officer did not have probable cause to arrest a driver for DUI, even though the driver exuded the odor of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and refused to take a state-administered chemical test, where the driver showed | 1 | 1 |
State v. Graygreen2 sentences2018He cites to cases in which we have affirmed an order granting a motion to suppress where the evidence showed consumption of alcohol but did not show the effect of that consumption on the defendant, that is, that he was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of driving safely.7 7 State v. Encinas, 302 Ga. App. 334, 336-337 ( 691 SE2d 257 ) (2010) (An officer did not have probable cause to arrest a driver for DUI, even though the driver exuded the odor of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and refused to take a state-administered chemical test, where the driver showed 2018He cites to cases in which we have affirmed an order granting a motion to suppress where the evidence showed consumption of alcohol but did not show the effect of that consumption on the defendant, that is, that he was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of driving safely.7 7 State v. Encinas, 302 Ga. App. 334, 336-337 ( 691 SE2d 257 ) (2010) (An officer did not have probable cause to arrest a driver for DUI, even though the driver exuded the odor of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and refused to take a state-administered chemical test, where the driver showed | 1 | 1 |
State v. Encinasgreen2 sentences2018He cites to cases in which we have affirmed an order granting a motion to suppress where the evidence showed consumption of alcohol but did not show the effect of that consumption on the defendant, that is, that he was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of driving safely.7 7 State v. Encinas, 302 Ga. App. 334, 336-337 ( 691 SE2d 257 ) (2010) (An officer did not have probable cause to arrest a driver for DUI, even though the driver exuded the odor of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and refused to take a state-administered chemical test, where the driver showed 2018He cites to cases in which we have affirmed an order granting a motion to suppress where the evidence showed consumption of alcohol but did not show the effect of that consumption on the defendant, that is, that he was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of driving safely.7 7 State v. Encinas, 302 Ga. App. 334, 336-337 ( 691 SE2d 257 ) (2010) (An officer did not have probable cause to arrest a driver for DUI, even though the driver exuded the odor of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and refused to take a state-administered chemical test, where the driver showed | 1 | 1 |
Rayburn v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Compare Rayburn v. State , 234 Ga. App. 482 , 483 (2), 506 S.E.2d 876 (1998) (state violated discovery statute by producing only a redacted copy of police officer's report on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test administered to defendant). 2018Compare Rayburn v. State , 234 Ga. App. 482 , 483 (2), 506 S.E.2d 876 (1998) (state violated discovery statute by producing only a redacted copy of police officer's report on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test administered to defendant). | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Stategreen2 sentences2018He cites to cases in which we have affirmed an order granting a motion to suppress where the evidence showed consumption of alcohol but did not show the effect of that consumption on the defendant, that is, that he was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of driving safely.7 7 State v. Encinas, 302 Ga. App. 334, 336-337 ( 691 SE2d 257 ) (2010) (An officer did not have probable cause to arrest a driver for DUI, even though the driver exuded the odor of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and refused to take a state-administered chemical test, where the driver showed 2018He cites to cases in which we have affirmed an order granting a motion to suppress where the evidence showed consumption of alcohol but did not show the effect of that consumption on the defendant, that is, that he was under the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered him incapable of driving safely.7 7 State v. Encinas, 302 Ga. App. 334, 336-337 ( 691 SE2d 257 ) (2010) (An officer did not have probable cause to arrest a driver for DUI, even though the driver exuded the odor of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, and refused to take a state-administered chemical test, where the driver showed | 1 | 1 |
State v. Prestongreen2 sentences2009Smith, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur in judgment only. 1 The officer also had Goode perform the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, but the results were suppressed by agreement of the parties because the officer did not conduct the test correctly. 2 Compare State v. Preston, 293 Ga. App. 94, 96 ( 666 SE2d 417 ) (2008) (driver’s admission to drinking alcohol, bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, positive alco-sensor test, and driver’s failure of field sobriety test established probable cause as a matter of law, where trial court did not reject all or part of the investigating officer’s testimony as lac 2009Smith, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur in judgment only. 1 The officer also had Goode perform the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, but the results were suppressed by agreement of the parties because the officer did not conduct the test correctly. 2 Compare State v. Preston, 293 Ga. App. 94, 96 ( 666 SE2d 417 ) (2008) (driver’s admission to drinking alcohol, bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, positive alco-sensor test, and driver’s failure of field sobriety test established probable cause as a matter of law, where trial court did not reject all or part of the investigating officer’s testimony as lac | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sledgegreen2 sentences2009Smith, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur in judgment only. 1 The officer also had Goode perform the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, but the results were suppressed by agreement of the parties because the officer did not conduct the test correctly. 2 Compare State v. Preston, 293 Ga. App. 94, 96 ( 666 SE2d 417 ) (2008) (driver’s admission to drinking alcohol, bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, positive alco-sensor test, and driver’s failure of field sobriety test established probable cause as a matter of law, where trial court did not reject all or part of the investigating officer’s testimony as lac 2009Smith, P. J., and Phipps, J., concur in judgment only. 1 The officer also had Goode perform the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, but the results were suppressed by agreement of the parties because the officer did not conduct the test correctly. 2 Compare State v. Preston, 293 Ga. App. 94, 96 ( 666 SE2d 417 ) (2008) (driver’s admission to drinking alcohol, bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, positive alco-sensor test, and driver’s failure of field sobriety test established probable cause as a matter of law, where trial court did not reject all or part of the investigating officer’s testimony as lac | 1 | 1 |
Northern v. Stategreen2 sentences2008“Where the record shows that *253 the defendant acquiesced in the trial court’s decision to give curative instructions and did not renew his motion for mistrial after the instructions were given, the defendant has waived the issue for purposes of appeal.” (Citations and footnotes omitted.) Northern v. State, 285 Ga. App. 303, 306 (2) ( 645 SE2d 701 ) (2007). 2008“Where the record shows that *253 the defendant acquiesced in the trial court’s decision to give curative instructions and did not renew his motion for mistrial after the instructions were given, the defendant has waived the issue for purposes of appeal.” (Citations and footnotes omitted.) Northern v. State, 285 Ga. App. 303, 306 (2) ( 645 SE2d 701 ) (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Rawl v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Andrews, P. J'., and Eldridge, J., concur. 1 Boger also filed motions in limine to exclude defendant’s alleged incriminatory statements and acts, all evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful seizure, and results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and to suppress evidence gathered in violation of defendant’s request for counsel. 2 The court denied Boger’s motion to exclude the results of the HGN test. 3 Self v. State, 245 Ga. App. 270, 272-273 (2) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000); State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga. App. 474, 478-479 (1) (a) ( 502 SE2d 314 ) (1998). 4 See Rawl v. State, 192 Ga. App. 57, 5 2002Andrews, P. J'., and Eldridge, J., concur. 1 Boger also filed motions in limine to exclude defendant’s alleged incriminatory statements and acts, all evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful seizure, and results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and to suppress evidence gathered in violation of defendant’s request for counsel. 2 The court denied Boger’s motion to exclude the results of the HGN test. 3 Self v. State, 245 Ga. App. 270, 272-273 (2) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000); State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga. App. 474, 478-479 (1) (a) ( 502 SE2d 314 ) (1998). 4 See Rawl v. State, 192 Ga. App. 57, 5 | 1 | 1 |
Self v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Andrews, P. J'., and Eldridge, J., concur. 1 Boger also filed motions in limine to exclude defendant’s alleged incriminatory statements and acts, all evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful seizure, and results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and to suppress evidence gathered in violation of defendant’s request for counsel. 2 The court denied Boger’s motion to exclude the results of the HGN test. 3 Self v. State, 245 Ga. App. 270, 272-273 (2) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000); State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga. App. 474, 478-479 (1) (a) ( 502 SE2d 314 ) (1998). 4 See Rawl v. State, 192 Ga. App. 57, 5 2002Andrews, P. J'., and Eldridge, J., concur. 1 Boger also filed motions in limine to exclude defendant’s alleged incriminatory statements and acts, all evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful seizure, and results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and to suppress evidence gathered in violation of defendant’s request for counsel. 2 The court denied Boger’s motion to exclude the results of the HGN test. 3 Self v. State, 245 Ga. App. 270, 272-273 (2) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000); State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga. App. 474, 478-479 (1) (a) ( 502 SE2d 314 ) (1998). 4 See Rawl v. State, 192 Ga. App. 57, 5 | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Andrews, P. J'., and Eldridge, J., concur. 1 Boger also filed motions in limine to exclude defendant’s alleged incriminatory statements and acts, all evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful seizure, and results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and to suppress evidence gathered in violation of defendant’s request for counsel. 2 The court denied Boger’s motion to exclude the results of the HGN test. 3 Self v. State, 245 Ga. App. 270, 272-273 (2) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000); State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga. App. 474, 478-479 (1) (a) ( 502 SE2d 314 ) (1998). 4 See Rawl v. State, 192 Ga. App. 57, 5 2002Andrews, P. J'., and Eldridge, J., concur. 1 Boger also filed motions in limine to exclude defendant’s alleged incriminatory statements and acts, all evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful seizure, and results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and to suppress evidence gathered in violation of defendant’s request for counsel. 2 The court denied Boger’s motion to exclude the results of the HGN test. 3 Self v. State, 245 Ga. App. 270, 272-273 (2) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000); State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga. App. 474, 478-479 (1) (a) ( 502 SE2d 314 ) (1998). 4 See Rawl v. State, 192 Ga. App. 57, 5 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kirbabasgreen2 sentences2002Andrews, P. J'., and Eldridge, J., concur. 1 Boger also filed motions in limine to exclude defendant’s alleged incriminatory statements and acts, all evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful seizure, and results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and to suppress evidence gathered in violation of defendant’s request for counsel. 2 The court denied Boger’s motion to exclude the results of the HGN test. 3 Self v. State, 245 Ga. App. 270, 272-273 (2) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000); State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga. App. 474, 478-479 (1) (a) ( 502 SE2d 314 ) (1998). 4 See Rawl v. State, 192 Ga. App. 57, 5 2002Andrews, P. J'., and Eldridge, J., concur. 1 Boger also filed motions in limine to exclude defendant’s alleged incriminatory statements and acts, all evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful seizure, and results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and to suppress evidence gathered in violation of defendant’s request for counsel. 2 The court denied Boger’s motion to exclude the results of the HGN test. 3 Self v. State, 245 Ga. App. 270, 272-273 (2) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000); State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga. App. 474, 478-479 (1) (a) ( 502 SE2d 314 ) (1998). 4 See Rawl v. State, 192 Ga. App. 57, 5 | 1 | 1 |
Oyler v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Andrews, P. J'., and Eldridge, J., concur. 1 Boger also filed motions in limine to exclude defendant’s alleged incriminatory statements and acts, all evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful seizure, and results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and to suppress evidence gathered in violation of defendant’s request for counsel. 2 The court denied Boger’s motion to exclude the results of the HGN test. 3 Self v. State, 245 Ga. App. 270, 272-273 (2) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000); State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga. App. 474, 478-479 (1) (a) ( 502 SE2d 314 ) (1998). 4 See Rawl v. State, 192 Ga. App. 57, 5 2002Andrews, P. J'., and Eldridge, J., concur. 1 Boger also filed motions in limine to exclude defendant’s alleged incriminatory statements and acts, all evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful seizure, and results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and to suppress evidence gathered in violation of defendant’s request for counsel. 2 The court denied Boger’s motion to exclude the results of the HGN test. 3 Self v. State, 245 Ga. App. 270, 272-273 (2) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000); State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga. App. 474, 478-479 (1) (a) ( 502 SE2d 314 ) (1998). 4 See Rawl v. State, 192 Ga. App. 57, 5 | 1 | 1 |
Beasley v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Andrews, P. J'., and Eldridge, J., concur. 1 Boger also filed motions in limine to exclude defendant’s alleged incriminatory statements and acts, all evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful seizure, and results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and to suppress evidence gathered in violation of defendant’s request for counsel. 2 The court denied Boger’s motion to exclude the results of the HGN test. 3 Self v. State, 245 Ga. App. 270, 272-273 (2) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000); State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga. App. 474, 478-479 (1) (a) ( 502 SE2d 314 ) (1998). 4 See Rawl v. State, 192 Ga. App. 57, 5 2002Andrews, P. J'., and Eldridge, J., concur. 1 Boger also filed motions in limine to exclude defendant’s alleged incriminatory statements and acts, all evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful seizure, and results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and to suppress evidence gathered in violation of defendant’s request for counsel. 2 The court denied Boger’s motion to exclude the results of the HGN test. 3 Self v. State, 245 Ga. App. 270, 272-273 (2) ( 537 SE2d 723 ) (2000); State v. Kirbabas, 232 Ga. App. 474, 478-479 (1) (a) ( 502 SE2d 314 ) (1998). 4 See Rawl v. State, 192 Ga. App. 57, 5 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bailey v. the State
green
1 sentence2024See also Hughes, supra, (officers had probable cause to believe that defendant was under the influence of some intoxicant when they had reason to believe he caused a fatal accident and he had a number of unknown pills on his person); Gilliam v. State, 295 Ga. App. 358, 359 ( 671 SE2d 859 ) (2008) disapproved in part on other grounds by Bailey v. State, 338 7 Ga. App. 428 ( 790 SE2d 98 ) (2016) (unsafe driving that caused collision coupled with odor of alcohol established probable cause that individual was driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs); State v. Ellison, 271 Ga. App. 89 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. GATES (And Vice Versa)
green
2 sentences2023See Duncan v. State, 305 Ga. App. 268, 272 (2) (a) (699 SE2d 341) (2010) (cited for the proposition that courts have considered whether a witness was sufficiently trained and experienced to give the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and interpret its results); Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 289-290 (1) (e) (393 SE2d 436) (1990) (cited because it “discuss[ed] problems with determination the relevant population and its importance to statistics.”) 33 have discussed TrueAllele in detail just once, in Gates v. State, 308 Ga. 238 (840 SE2d 437) (2020). 7 And all we said there was that (1) the defendan 2023See Duncan v. State, 305 Ga. App. 268, 272 (2) (a) (699 SE2d 341) (2010) (cited for the proposition that courts have considered whether a witness was sufficiently trained and experienced to give the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and interpret its results); Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 289-290 (1) (e) (393 SE2d 436) (1990) (cited because it “discuss[ed] problems with determination the relevant population and its importance to statistics.”) 33 have discussed TrueAllele in detail just once, in Gates v. State, 308 Ga. 238 (840 SE2d 437) (2020). 7 And all we said there was that (1) the defendan | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Harper v. State
green
2 sentences2005There, the Court of Appeals held that although the horizontal gaze nystagmus test was subject to the Harper [ v. State, 249 Ga. 519 , 292 S.E.2d 389 (1982)] standard [that a given scientific principle or technique may be verified with such certainty that it is competent evidence in a court of law], basic sobriety tests such as the "ABCs," "walk and turn," and "leg lift" are physical dexterity exercises that common sense, common experience, and the "laws of nature" show are performed less well after drinking alcohol. 2005There, the Court of Appeals held that although the horizontal gaze nystagmus test was subject to the Harper [ v. State, 249 Ga. 519 , 292 S.E.2d 389 (1982)] standard [that a given scientific principle or technique may be verified with such certainty that it is competent evidence in a court of law], basic sobriety tests such as the "ABCs," "walk and turn," and "leg lift" are physical dexterity exercises that common sense, common experience, and the "laws of nature" show are performed less well after drinking alcohol. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hawkins v. State
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 38 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.