Jones v. State
319 Ga. App. 520
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Jones was convicted after a bench trial of DUI (less safe) and open container in Henry County (Oct 30, 2011).
- Officer Gleason read the implied consent notice asking only for a blood test; Jones agreed to blood testing.
- At the jail, Officer Johnson performed a state-administered breath test on Jones; no blood test was performed.
- There was no rereading of the implied consent notice and no discussion about which test would be conducted; Jones submitted to the breath test voluntarily.
- The trial court admitted the breath test results, relying on Doyle and related precedents; on appeal, Jones challenges the notice as not enabling informed consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the breath test admissible given the implied consent notice designated only a blood test? | Jones argues notice was insufficient to obtain informed consent to breath test. | State contends the notice was substantively accurate and permitted informed consent under case law. | Admissible; notice substantively accurate and informed consent supported. |
| Did Jones consent to the breath test by submitting after the implied consent warning? | Jones asserts lack of explicit consent to breath test invalidates results. | State relies on Doyle showing consent or non-refusal suffices for admissibility. | Admissible; Jones voluntarily consented by submitting without protest. |
| Does OCGA 40-5-67.1(d.1) regarding voluntary consent affect suppression? | Jones argues subsections could preclude admission if implied consent warnings were defective. | State argues voluntary consent doctrine and McMullen support admission notwithstanding warnings. | Admissible; statutory amendment does not require suppression here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. State, 281 Ga. App. 592 (Ga. App. 2006) (consent not required to prove; non-refusal suffices for admissibility)
- State v. Heredia, 252 Ga. App. 89 (Ga. App. 2001) (independent test rights not violated by reading warning after initial designation)
- State v. Coe, 243 Ga. App. 232 (Ga. App. 2000) (no requirement to designate all tests before initial test; subsequent tests allowed)
- Collins v. State, 290 Ga. App. 418 (Ga. App. 2008) (implied consent warning sufficiency depends on substance of notice, not specific designation)
- McMullen v. State, 316 Ga. App. 684 (Ga. App. 2012) (OCGA § 40-5-67.1(d)(1) eliminates need for implied notice when testing is voluntary)