11 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stewart v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Heller v. State, 234 Ga. App. 630, 632 (2) (b) ( 507 SE2d 518 ) (1998) (“sobriety tests such as the ‘walk and turn’ and the ‘one leg stand,’ . . . demonstrate a suspect’s dexterity and ability to follow directions”) (citation and punctuation omitted).While evidence was also presented that White failed to properly administer the non-scientific field sobriety tests, that evidence addresses “the weight of the evidence from these tests and not . . . its admissibility.” Stewart v. State, 280 Ga. App. 366, 368-369 (2) ( 634 SE2d 141 ) (2006). 2025See Heller v. State, 234 Ga. App. 630, 632 (2) (b) ( 507 SE2d 518 ) (1998) (“sobriety tests such as the ‘walk and turn’ and the ‘one leg stand,’ . . . demonstrate a suspect’s dexterity and ability to follow directions”) (citation and punctuation omitted).While evidence was also presented that White failed to properly administer the non-scientific field sobriety tests, that evidence addresses “the weight of the evidence from these tests and not . . . its admissibility.” Stewart v. State, 280 Ga. App. 366, 368-369 (2) ( 634 SE2d 141 ) (2006). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Pastorinigreen2 sentences2025An officer’s failure to correctly administer a dexterity test does not call for exclusion of the evidence, as “[t]he weight 11 and credibility of evidence such as this should be left for jury determination.” State v. Pastorini, 222 Ga. App. 316, 319 (2) ( 474 SE2d 122 ) (1996) (the trial court’s suppression of one-leg stand and walk and turn tests due to the officer’s failure to correctly administer the tests was reversed so that a factfinder could determine the weight to give the evidence) (disapproved in part on other grounds by Turnquest, 305 Ga. at 775 (4) n. 15). 2025An officer’s failure to correctly administer a dexterity test does not call for exclusion of the evidence, as “[t]he weight 11 and credibility of evidence such as this should be left for jury determination.” State v. Pastorini, 222 Ga. App. 316, 319 (2) ( 474 SE2d 122 ) (1996) (the trial court’s suppression of one-leg stand and walk and turn tests due to the officer’s failure to correctly administer the tests was reversed so that a factfinder could determine the weight to give the evidence) (disapproved in part on other grounds by Turnquest, 305 Ga. at 775 (4) n. 15). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Turnquestgreen2 sentences2025Ga. June 2, 2015) (footnote omitted); see also United States v. Nguyen, No. CR F 06–0075 5 Of note, previously, under the Harper standard, the Georgia Supreme Court differentiated between scientific tests, “which must meet standards of validity and reliability, such as the HGN test” and “a simple physical dexterity exercise observable by the average layperson, such as the walk and turn test or the one-leg stand test[.]” Mitchell v. State, 301 Ga. 563, 566 (1) ( 802 SE2d 217 ) (2017) (disapproved in part on other grounds in State v. Turnquest, 305 Ga. 758, 775 (4) n. 15 ( 827 SE2d 865 ) (2019)) 2025See also Rowell v. State, 312 Ga. App. 559, 562 (2) (a) ( 718 SE2d 890 ) (2011) (“arguments concerning the proper administration of the one-leg-stand test . . . goes to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility”) (disapproved in part on other grounds in State v. Turnquest, 305 Ga. 758, 775 (4) n. 15 ( 827 SE2d 865 ) (2019). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Turnquestgreen2 sentences2025See also Rowell v. State, 312 Ga. App. 559, 562 (2) (a) ( 718 SE2d 890 ) (2011) (“arguments concerning the proper administration of the one-leg-stand test . . . goes to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility”) (disapproved in part on other grounds in State v. Turnquest, 305 Ga. 758, 775 (4) n. 15 ( 827 SE2d 865 ) (2019). 2025Ga. June 2, 2015) (footnote omitted); see also United States v. Nguyen, No. CR F 06–0075 5 Of note, previously, under the Harper standard, the Georgia Supreme Court differentiated between scientific tests, “which must meet standards of validity and reliability, such as the HGN test” and “a simple physical dexterity exercise observable by the average layperson, such as the walk and turn test or the one-leg stand test[.]” Mitchell v. State, 301 Ga. 563, 566 (1) ( 802 SE2d 217 ) (2017) (disapproved in part on other grounds in State v. Turnquest, 305 Ga. 758, 775 (4) n. 15 ( 827 SE2d 865 ) (2019)) | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Ga. June 2, 2015) (footnote omitted); see also United States v. Nguyen, No. CR F 06–0075 5 Of note, previously, under the Harper standard, the Georgia Supreme Court differentiated between scientific tests, “which must meet standards of validity and reliability, such as the HGN test” and “a simple physical dexterity exercise observable by the average layperson, such as the walk and turn test or the one-leg stand test[.]” Mitchell v. State, 301 Ga. 563, 566 (1) ( 802 SE2d 217 ) (2017) (disapproved in part on other grounds in State v. Turnquest, 305 Ga. 758, 775 (4) n. 15 ( 827 SE2d 865 ) (2019)) 2025Ga. June 2, 2015) (footnote omitted); see also United States v. Nguyen, No. CR F 06–0075 5 Of note, previously, under the Harper standard, the Georgia Supreme Court differentiated between scientific tests, “which must meet standards of validity and reliability, such as the HGN test” and “a simple physical dexterity exercise observable by the average layperson, such as the walk and turn test or the one-leg stand test[.]” Mitchell v. State, 301 Ga. 563, 566 (1) ( 802 SE2d 217 ) (2017) (disapproved in part on other grounds in State v. Turnquest, 305 Ga. 758, 775 (4) n. 15 ( 827 SE2d 865 ) (2019)) | 1 | 1 |
Heller v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Heller v. State, 234 Ga. App. 630, 632 (2) (b) ( 507 SE2d 518 ) (1998) (“sobriety tests such as the ‘walk and turn’ and the ‘one leg stand,’ . . . demonstrate a suspect’s dexterity and ability to follow directions”) (citation and punctuation omitted).While evidence was also presented that White failed to properly administer the non-scientific field sobriety tests, that evidence addresses “the weight of the evidence from these tests and not . . . its admissibility.” Stewart v. State, 280 Ga. App. 366, 368-369 (2) ( 634 SE2d 141 ) (2006). 2025See Heller v. State, 234 Ga. App. 630, 632 (2) (b) ( 507 SE2d 518 ) (1998) (“sobriety tests such as the ‘walk and turn’ and the ‘one leg stand,’ . . . demonstrate a suspect’s dexterity and ability to follow directions”) (citation and punctuation omitted).While evidence was also presented that White failed to properly administer the non-scientific field sobriety tests, that evidence addresses “the weight of the evidence from these tests and not . . . its admissibility.” Stewart v. State, 280 Ga. App. 366, 368-369 (2) ( 634 SE2d 141 ) (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Rowell v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See also Rowell v. State, 312 Ga. App. 559, 562 (2) (a) ( 718 SE2d 890 ) (2011) (“arguments concerning the proper administration of the one-leg-stand test . . . goes to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility”) (disapproved in part on other grounds in State v. Turnquest, 305 Ga. 758, 775 (4) n. 15 ( 827 SE2d 865 ) (2019). 2025See also Rowell v. State, 312 Ga. App. 559, 562 (2) (a) ( 718 SE2d 890 ) (2011) (“arguments concerning the proper administration of the one-leg-stand test . . . goes to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility”) (disapproved in part on other grounds in State v. Turnquest, 305 Ga. 758, 775 (4) n. 15 ( 827 SE2d 865 ) (2019). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cullergreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., Davis v. State, 358 Ga. App. 832, 835 (856 SE2d 411) (2021) (noting that, at the request of the officer, the suspect “performed” the walk and turn test and the one-leg stand); Leggett v. State, 354 Ga. App. 877, 878 (842 SE2d 313) (2020) (noting that the suspect “could not keep his balance” while performing the walk and turn test); State v. Culler, 351 Ga. App. 19, 21 (830 SE2d 434) (2019) 22 (noting that the suspect “was able to stand straight, arms at his side, with one leg raised, and while counting out loud for approximately 23 seconds, during which time he exhibited no problems 2022See, e.g., Davis v. State, 358 Ga. App. 832, 835 (856 SE2d 411) (2021) (noting that, at the request of the officer, the suspect “performed” the walk and turn test and the one-leg stand); Leggett v. State, 354 Ga. App. 877, 878 (842 SE2d 313) (2020) (noting that the suspect “could not keep his balance” while performing the walk and turn test); State v. Culler, 351 Ga. App. 19, 21 (830 SE2d 434) (2019) 22 (noting that the suspect “was able to stand straight, arms at his side, with one leg raised, and while counting out loud for approximately 23 seconds, during which time he exhibited no problems | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2016The trial court was authorized to accept or reject any portion of the responding officer’s testimony See Brown v. State, 293 Ga. 787, 804 (3) (b) (2) ( 750 SE2d 148 ) (2013). 2016The trial court was authorized to accept or reject any portion of the responding officer’s testimony See Brown v. State, 293 Ga. 787, 804 (3) (b) (2) ( 750 SE2d 148 ) (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Pepe-Frazier v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101. 11 See Duncan v. State, 232 Ga. App. 157, 160 (3) ( 500 SE2d 603 ) (1998); Robertson v. State, 225 Ga. App. 389 (1) ( 484 SE2d 18 ) (1997) (no error to exclude testimony outside of witness’s area of expertise). 12 (Punctuation omitted.) Pepe-Frazier v. State, 331 Ga. App. 263, 266-267 (2), n. 10 ( 770 SE2d 654 ) (2015) (decided under former Evidence Code but noting that “the standard under the former Evidence Code for permitting an expert to offer opinion testimony in a criminal proceeding was retained in Georgia’s new Evidence Code at OCGA § 24-7-707”). 2015See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101. 11 See Duncan v. State, 232 Ga. App. 157, 160 (3) ( 500 SE2d 603 ) (1998); Robertson v. State, 225 Ga. App. 389 (1) ( 484 SE2d 18 ) (1997) (no error to exclude testimony outside of witness’s area of expertise). 12 (Punctuation omitted.) Pepe-Frazier v. State, 331 Ga. App. 263, 266-267 (2), n. 10 ( 770 SE2d 654 ) (2015) (decided under former Evidence Code but noting that “the standard under the former Evidence Code for permitting an expert to offer opinion testimony in a criminal proceeding was retained in Georgia’s new Evidence Code at OCGA § 24-7-707”). | 1 | 1 |
Brittain v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Phipps, P. J., and Boggs, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 40-6-48. 2 OCGA § 40-6-390 (a). 3 OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1). 4 OCGA § 40-6-50 (b). 5 See Short v. State, 234 Ga. App. 633, 634 (1) (507 SE2d 514) (1998). 6 The officer had planned to administer a one-leg stand test. 7 OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5). 8 Her brief also lacks adequate citation to the record, a statement of the standards of review, and jurisdictional statement, as required by Court of Appeals Rules 22 (b) and 25 (a). 9 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Brittain v. State, 329 Ga. App. 689, 704 (4) (a) ( 766 SE2d 106 ) (2014). 10 The court was 2015Phipps, P. J., and Boggs, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 40-6-48. 2 OCGA § 40-6-390 (a). 3 OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1). 4 OCGA § 40-6-50 (b). 5 See Short v. State, 234 Ga. App. 633, 634 (1) (507 SE2d 514) (1998). 6 The officer had planned to administer a one-leg stand test. 7 OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5). 8 Her brief also lacks adequate citation to the record, a statement of the standards of review, and jurisdictional statement, as required by Court of Appeals Rules 22 (b) and 25 (a). 9 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Brittain v. State, 329 Ga. App. 689, 704 (4) (a) ( 766 SE2d 106 ) (2014). 10 The court was | 1 | 1 |
Short v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Phipps, P. J., and Boggs, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 40-6-48. 2 OCGA § 40-6-390 (a). 3 OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1). 4 OCGA § 40-6-50 (b). 5 See Short v. State, 234 Ga. App. 633, 634 (1) (507 SE2d 514) (1998). 6 The officer had planned to administer a one-leg stand test. 7 OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5). 8 Her brief also lacks adequate citation to the record, a statement of the standards of review, and jurisdictional statement, as required by Court of Appeals Rules 22 (b) and 25 (a). 9 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Brittain v. State, 329 Ga. App. 689, 704 (4) (a) ( 766 SE2d 106 ) (2014). 10 The court was 2015Phipps, P. J., and Boggs, J., concur. 1 OCGA § 40-6-48. 2 OCGA § 40-6-390 (a). 3 OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1). 4 OCGA § 40-6-50 (b). 5 See Short v. State, 234 Ga. App. 633, 634 (1) (507 SE2d 514) (1998). 6 The officer had planned to administer a one-leg stand test. 7 OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5). 8 Her brief also lacks adequate citation to the record, a statement of the standards of review, and jurisdictional statement, as required by Court of Appeals Rules 22 (b) and 25 (a). 9 (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Brittain v. State, 329 Ga. App. 689, 704 (4) (a) ( 766 SE2d 106 ) (2014). 10 The court was | 1 | 1 |
Duncan v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101. 11 See Duncan v. State, 232 Ga. App. 157, 160 (3) ( 500 SE2d 603 ) (1998); Robertson v. State, 225 Ga. App. 389 (1) ( 484 SE2d 18 ) (1997) (no error to exclude testimony outside of witness’s area of expertise). 12 (Punctuation omitted.) Pepe-Frazier v. State, 331 Ga. App. 263, 266-267 (2), n. 10 ( 770 SE2d 654 ) (2015) (decided under former Evidence Code but noting that “the standard under the former Evidence Code for permitting an expert to offer opinion testimony in a criminal proceeding was retained in Georgia’s new Evidence Code at OCGA § 24-7-707”). 2015See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101. 11 See Duncan v. State, 232 Ga. App. 157, 160 (3) ( 500 SE2d 603 ) (1998); Robertson v. State, 225 Ga. App. 389 (1) ( 484 SE2d 18 ) (1997) (no error to exclude testimony outside of witness’s area of expertise). 12 (Punctuation omitted.) Pepe-Frazier v. State, 331 Ga. App. 263, 266-267 (2), n. 10 ( 770 SE2d 654 ) (2015) (decided under former Evidence Code but noting that “the standard under the former Evidence Code for permitting an expert to offer opinion testimony in a criminal proceeding was retained in Georgia’s new Evidence Code at OCGA § 24-7-707”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tousleygreen2 sentences2008Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur. 1 (Citation omitted.) Slayton v. State, 281 Ga. App. 650 -651 (1) ( 637 SE2d 67 ) (2006). 2 (Footnote omitted.) State v. Hester, 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 ( 602 SE2d 271 ) (2004). 3 The HGN test “is based upon the principle that horizontal gaze nystagmus, an involuntary movement of the eyes, can be caused by the ingestion of alcohol.” (Citation omitted.) Waits v. State, 232 Ga. App. 357, 360 (3) ( 501 SE2d 870 ) (1998). 4 Verola observed two clues out of a possible eight on the walk and turn and two clues on the one-leg stand test. 5 Sultan v. State, 289 Ga. Ap 2008Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur. 1 (Citation omitted.) Slayton v. State, 281 Ga. App. 650 -651 (1) ( 637 SE2d 67 ) (2006). 2 (Footnote omitted.) State v. Hester, 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 ( 602 SE2d 271 ) (2004). 3 The HGN test “is based upon the principle that horizontal gaze nystagmus, an involuntary movement of the eyes, can be caused by the ingestion of alcohol.” (Citation omitted.) Waits v. State, 232 Ga. App. 357, 360 (3) ( 501 SE2d 870 ) (1998). 4 Verola observed two clues out of a possible eight on the walk and turn and two clues on the one-leg stand test. 5 Sultan v. State, 289 Ga. Ap | 1 | 1 |
Sultan v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur. 1 (Citation omitted.) Slayton v. State, 281 Ga. App. 650 -651 (1) ( 637 SE2d 67 ) (2006). 2 (Footnote omitted.) State v. Hester, 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 ( 602 SE2d 271 ) (2004). 3 The HGN test “is based upon the principle that horizontal gaze nystagmus, an involuntary movement of the eyes, can be caused by the ingestion of alcohol.” (Citation omitted.) Waits v. State, 232 Ga. App. 357, 360 (3) ( 501 SE2d 870 ) (1998). 4 Verola observed two clues out of a possible eight on the walk and turn and two clues on the one-leg stand test. 5 Sultan v. State, 289 Ga. Ap 2008Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur. 1 (Citation omitted.) Slayton v. State, 281 Ga. App. 650 -651 (1) ( 637 SE2d 67 ) (2006). 2 (Footnote omitted.) State v. Hester, 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 ( 602 SE2d 271 ) (2004). 3 The HGN test “is based upon the principle that horizontal gaze nystagmus, an involuntary movement of the eyes, can be caused by the ingestion of alcohol.” (Citation omitted.) Waits v. State, 232 Ga. App. 357, 360 (3) ( 501 SE2d 870 ) (1998). 4 Verola observed two clues out of a possible eight on the walk and turn and two clues on the one-leg stand test. 5 Sultan v. State, 289 Ga. Ap | 1 | 1 |
State v. Palmakagreen2 sentences2008Accord Keller v. State, 271 Ga. App. 79, 80-81 (2) ( 608 SE2d 697 ) (2004). 14 See State v. Palmaka (“Palmaka /”), 266 Ga. App. 595, 596 ( 597 SE2d 630 ) (2004). 2008Accord Keller v. State, 271 Ga. App. 79, 80-81 (2) ( 608 SE2d 697 ) (2004). 14 See State v. Palmaka (“Palmaka /”), 266 Ga. App. 595, 596 ( 597 SE2d 630 ) (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Keller v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Accord Keller v. State, 271 Ga. App. 79, 80-81 (2) ( 608 SE2d 697 ) (2004). 14 See State v. Palmaka (“Palmaka /”), 266 Ga. App. 595, 596 ( 597 SE2d 630 ) (2004). 2008Accord Keller v. State, 271 Ga. App. 79, 80-81 (2) ( 608 SE2d 697 ) (2004). 14 See State v. Palmaka (“Palmaka /”), 266 Ga. App. 595, 596 ( 597 SE2d 630 ) (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Waits v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur. 1 (Citation omitted.) Slayton v. State, 281 Ga. App. 650 -651 (1) ( 637 SE2d 67 ) (2006). 2 (Footnote omitted.) State v. Hester, 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 ( 602 SE2d 271 ) (2004). 3 The HGN test “is based upon the principle that horizontal gaze nystagmus, an involuntary movement of the eyes, can be caused by the ingestion of alcohol.” (Citation omitted.) Waits v. State, 232 Ga. App. 357, 360 (3) ( 501 SE2d 870 ) (1998). 4 Verola observed two clues out of a possible eight on the walk and turn and two clues on the one-leg stand test. 5 Sultan v. State, 289 Ga. Ap 2008Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur. 1 (Citation omitted.) Slayton v. State, 281 Ga. App. 650 -651 (1) ( 637 SE2d 67 ) (2006). 2 (Footnote omitted.) State v. Hester, 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 ( 602 SE2d 271 ) (2004). 3 The HGN test “is based upon the principle that horizontal gaze nystagmus, an involuntary movement of the eyes, can be caused by the ingestion of alcohol.” (Citation omitted.) Waits v. State, 232 Ga. App. 357, 360 (3) ( 501 SE2d 870 ) (1998). 4 Verola observed two clues out of a possible eight on the walk and turn and two clues on the one-leg stand test. 5 Sultan v. State, 289 Ga. Ap | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hestergreen2 sentences2008Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur. 1 (Citation omitted.) Slayton v. State, 281 Ga. App. 650 -651 (1) ( 637 SE2d 67 ) (2006). 2 (Footnote omitted.) State v. Hester, 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 ( 602 SE2d 271 ) (2004). 3 The HGN test “is based upon the principle that horizontal gaze nystagmus, an involuntary movement of the eyes, can be caused by the ingestion of alcohol.” (Citation omitted.) Waits v. State, 232 Ga. App. 357, 360 (3) ( 501 SE2d 870 ) (1998). 4 Verola observed two clues out of a possible eight on the walk and turn and two clues on the one-leg stand test. 5 Sultan v. State, 289 Ga. Ap 2008Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur. 1 (Citation omitted.) Slayton v. State, 281 Ga. App. 650 -651 (1) ( 637 SE2d 67 ) (2006). 2 (Footnote omitted.) State v. Hester, 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 ( 602 SE2d 271 ) (2004). 3 The HGN test “is based upon the principle that horizontal gaze nystagmus, an involuntary movement of the eyes, can be caused by the ingestion of alcohol.” (Citation omitted.) Waits v. State, 232 Ga. App. 357, 360 (3) ( 501 SE2d 870 ) (1998). 4 Verola observed two clues out of a possible eight on the walk and turn and two clues on the one-leg stand test. 5 Sultan v. State, 289 Ga. Ap | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Hawkins v. State, 223 Ga. App. 34, 36 (1) ( 476 SE2d 803 ) (1996). 2006Hawkins v. State, 223 Ga. App. 34, 36 (1) ( 476 SE2d 803 ) (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yeong Sik Oh v. State
green
2 sentences2022See, e.g., Davis v. State, 358 Ga. App. 832, 835 (856 SE2d 411) (2021) (noting that, at the request of the officer, the suspect “performed” the walk and turn test and the one-leg stand); Leggett v. State, 354 Ga. App. 877, 878 (842 SE2d 313) (2020) (noting that the suspect “could not keep his balance” while performing the walk and turn test); State v. Culler, 351 Ga. App. 19, 21 (830 SE2d 434) (2019) 22 (noting that the suspect “was able to stand straight, arms at his side, with one leg raised, and while counting out loud for approximately 23 seconds, during which time he exhibited no problems 2022See, e.g., Davis v. State, 358 Ga. App. 832 , 835 ( 856 SE2d 411 ) (2021) (noting that, at the request of the officer, the suspect “performed” the walk and turn test and the one-leg stand); Leggett v. State, 354 Ga. App. 877 , 878 ( 842 SE2d 313 ) (2020) (noting that the suspect “could not keep his balance” while performing the walk and turn test); State v. Culler, 351 Ga. App. 19, 21 ( 830 SE2d 434 ) (2019) (noting that the suspect “was able to stand straight, arms at his side, 22 with one leg raised, and while counting out loud for approximately 23 seconds, during which time he exhibited no | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Robertson v. State
green
2 sentences2015See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101. 11 See Duncan v. State, 232 Ga. App. 157, 160 (3) ( 500 SE2d 603 ) (1998); Robertson v. State, 225 Ga. App. 389 (1) ( 484 SE2d 18 ) (1997) (no error to exclude testimony outside of witness’s area of expertise). 12 (Punctuation omitted.) Pepe-Frazier v. State, 331 Ga. App. 263, 266-267 (2), n. 10 ( 770 SE2d 654 ) (2015) (decided under former Evidence Code but noting that “the standard under the former Evidence Code for permitting an expert to offer opinion testimony in a criminal proceeding was retained in Georgia’s new Evidence Code at OCGA § 24-7-707”). 2015See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101. 11 See Duncan v. State, 232 Ga. App. 157, 160 (3) ( 500 SE2d 603 ) (1998); Robertson v. State, 225 Ga. App. 389 (1) ( 484 SE2d 18 ) (1997) (no error to exclude testimony outside of witness’s area of expertise). 12 (Punctuation omitted.) Pepe-Frazier v. State, 331 Ga. App. 263, 266-267 (2), n. 10 ( 770 SE2d 654 ) (2015) (decided under former Evidence Code but noting that “the standard under the former Evidence Code for permitting an expert to offer opinion testimony in a criminal proceeding was retained in Georgia’s new Evidence Code at OCGA § 24-7-707”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Slayton v. State
green
2 sentences2008Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur. 1 (Citation omitted.) Slayton v. State, 281 Ga. App. 650 -651 (1) ( 637 SE2d 67 ) (2006). 2 (Footnote omitted.) State v. Hester, 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 ( 602 SE2d 271 ) (2004). 3 The HGN test “is based upon the principle that horizontal gaze nystagmus, an involuntary movement of the eyes, can be caused by the ingestion of alcohol.” (Citation omitted.) Waits v. State, 232 Ga. App. 357, 360 (3) ( 501 SE2d 870 ) (1998). 4 Verola observed two clues out of a possible eight on the walk and turn and two clues on the one-leg stand test. 5 Sultan v. State, 289 Ga. Ap 2008Smith, P. J., and Adams, J., concur. 1 (Citation omitted.) Slayton v. State, 281 Ga. App. 650 -651 (1) ( 637 SE2d 67 ) (2006). 2 (Footnote omitted.) State v. Hester, 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 ( 602 SE2d 271 ) (2004). 3 The HGN test “is based upon the principle that horizontal gaze nystagmus, an involuntary movement of the eyes, can be caused by the ingestion of alcohol.” (Citation omitted.) Waits v. State, 232 Ga. App. 357, 360 (3) ( 501 SE2d 870 ) (1998). 4 Verola observed two clues out of a possible eight on the walk and turn and two clues on the one-leg stand test. 5 Sultan v. State, 289 Ga. Ap | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Causey
green
2 sentences1996The results of Shipman’s state-administered Intoximeter 3000 test were suppressed because of an invalid implied consent warning under State v. Causey, 215 Ga. App. 85 ( 449 SE2d 639 ) (1994). 1996The results of Shipman’s state-administered Intoximeter 3000 test were suppressed because of an invalid implied consent warning under State v. Causey, 215 Ga. App. 85 ( 449 SE2d 639 ) (1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.