Purpose.

- Purpose of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-23 is to avoid surprises. Mowery v. State, 234 Ga. App. 801, 507 S.E.2d 821 (1998).

O.C.G.A. § 17-16-23(b) pertains only to written scientific reports and did not apply if test results were not reduced to writing and the medical examiner gave only oral testimony. Brown v. State, 268 Ga. 354, 490 S.E.2d 75 (1997).

Application of exclusionary rule.

- Exclusionary rule of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-23 applies only if the state fails altogether to furnish discovery material, and thus, if material is furnished late, the proper remedy may be, in the court's discretion, a continuance upon proper request by the accused. Mowery v. State, 234 Ga. App. 801, 507 S.E.2d 821 (1998).

Certificate of inspection of breath testing instruments.

- Certificate of inspection of breath testing instruments required by O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392(f) is not a written scientific report within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-23. Harmon v. State, 224 Ga. App. 890, 482 S.E.2d 730 (1997); Fantasia v. State, 268 Ga. 512, 491 S.E.2d 318 (1997).

Certificate of Calibration.

- Trial court did not err in allowing the state to enter into evidence and conduct direct examination regarding the Certificate of Calibration for the radar device used in the defendant's speeding case without first having provided that certificate to the defendant pursuant to the defendant's discovery request as that certificate was not a "written scientific report" subject to discovery because it did not involve a test generally carried out during the investigation of a crime, but, instead, reflected testing that was done to make sure the radar device was working properly. Putman v. State, 270 Ga. App. 45, 606 S.E.2d 50 (2004).

Source code for breath test machine.

- In a DUI case, the defendant was not entitled to discovery of the "source code" used to program a breath test machine. The defendant did not show that the code was in the possession, custody, or control of the state as required by O.C.G.A. §§ 17-16-1(1) and17-16-23(b). Hills v. State, 291 Ga. App. 873, 663 S.E.2d 265 (2008).

Breath test results, etc. were included within the terms of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-23 and should have been provided to the defendant in a prosecution for driving under the influence. Harmon v. State, 224 Ga. App. 890, 482 S.E.2d 730 (1997); Fantasia v. State, 268 Ga. 512, 491 S.E.2d 318 (1997).

When there was uncontroverted evidence that the defendant was given a copy of breath test results at the time the test was administered, the defendant was not harmed by the failure of the state to provide the results by discovery. Vincent v. State, 228 Ga. App. 691, 492 S.E.2d 604 (1997).

In the absence of a sufficient record, the appellate court would assume that the defendant received all reports regarding blood-alcohol test results to which the defendant was entitled. Self v. State, 232 Ga. App. 735, 503 S.E.2d 625 (1998).

Trial court did not err in failing to exclude evidence of the defendant's breath test results because the state failed to comply with O.C.G.A. § 17-16-23(b), based on the conduct of defense counsel in moving to exclude the documents at trial, after having no objection to the documents at the suppression hearing, and failing to move for a continuance, as counsel's motion to exclude was made as part of a strategy to ambush or trap the state; hence, in view of this conduct and the earlier availability of the documents, the trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in refusing to exclude the test results. Braswell v. State, 281 Ga. App. 500, 636 S.E.2d 689 (2006).

Trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion to suppress a breath test slip from an intoxilyzer and all testimony about the intoxilyzer because the state was not required to produce the breath test slip to the defendant ten days before trial as a part of discovery since the breath test slip did not constitute a written scientific report within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-23; no test or analysis was performed because the sample was insufficient, and the breath test slip did not show any test results but reflected only a measurement of breath volume. State v. Tan, 305 Ga. App. 55, 699 S.E.2d 74 (2010).

Printout reflecting an "insufficient sample," and thus no analysis and no result is not subject to discovery under O.C.G.A. § 17-16-23 because if there is no test and no result, there is nothing to discover. State v. Tan, 305 Ga. App. 55, 699 S.E.2d 74 (2010).

State did not violate the state's discovery obligations because the discovery statute only required production of any reports in the possession of the prosecution, and the undisputed evidence in the case was that the intoxilyzer printouts were lost, without any evidence of intentional destruction or bad faith on the part of the state. Jones v. State, 345 Ga. App. 14, 812 S.E.2d 337 (2018).

Horizontal gaze nystagmus test.

- Law required exclusion both of a written report and oral testimony regarding a horizontal gaze nystagmus test administered to the defendant since the defendant made a timely written demand for scientific reports and the state redacted the preprinted section of the police report in which the arresting officer hand wrote the results of the test. Rayburn v. State, 234 Ga. App. 482, 506 S.E.2d 876 (1998).

Gas chromatograph printout is not a scientific report.

- Printout from a gas chromatograph is a graph or recordation of data and is not a scientific report; therefore, Rayburn v. State, 234 Ga. App. 482, 506 S.E.2d 876 (1998), along with other cases interpreting O.C.G.A. § 17-16-23, do not govern a discovery dispute regarding the printout. Birdsall v. State, 254 Ga. App. 555, 562 S.E.2d 841 (2002).

Admissibility of breath test slip.

- Trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion to suppress a breath test slip from an intoxilyzer and all testimony about the intoxilyzer because no surprise occurred when the defendant's attorney had already been shown the breath test slip and cross-examined a police officer about the slip at the motion hearing, and the state agreed to provide the defendant a copy; although the better practice would have been to provide the defendant a copy of the slip before the trial date, the record demonstrated that the state provided a copy at the hearing on the pretrial motion. State v. Tan, 305 Ga. App. 55, 699 S.E.2d 74 (2010).

Receipt of breath test results from jail staff sufficient.

- Court rejected a DUI the defendant's argument that the trial court erred in allowing the state to admit the results of the defendant's breathalyzer test because the state failed to provide a copy of the results to the defendant during discovery in violation of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-23; the uncontroverted evidence indicated that the defendant received a copy of the test results from the jail staff immediately after the results were recorded. Jacobson v. State, 306 Ga. App. 815, 703 S.E.2d 376 (2010), cert. denied, No. S11C0498, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 582 (Ga. 2011).

Failure to produce independent chemical test of blood.

- O.C.G.A. § 40-6-392(a)(4), with regard to an independent chemical test of blood, specifies no deadline for requesting full information, no timetable for supplying the information, and no penalty for the state's failure to produce the information. State v. Thompson, 334 Ga. App. 692, 780 S.E.2d 67 (2015).

Cited in Renschen v. State, 225 Ga. App. 678, 484 S.E.2d 753 (1997); Cornwell v. State, 283 Ga. 247, 657 S.E.2d 195 (2008); Black v. State, 309 Ga. App. 880, 711 S.E.2d 428 (2011).