Massey v. State
331 Ga. App. 430
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Massey was arrested for DUI and refused an officer-requested breath test after receiving the implied-consent notice.
- Officer obtained a search warrant and blood was forcibly drawn; Georgia Bureau of Investigation forensic toxicologist tested it by gas chromatography and reported .133 g/100 ml (± .005).
- Massey sought pretrial discovery under OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(4) for “full information concerning the test” (e.g., GC printouts, notes).
- Trial court denied the request because subsection (a)(4) is expressly limited to the person who submits to a chemical test at the request of a law enforcement officer — i.e., a driver who complied with an implied-consent test at arrest.
- Court of Appeals affirmed: because Massey refused the officer’s requested test, he falls outside the statutory discovery entitlement; the court did not decide whether other avenues (outside § 40-6-392(a)(4)) might allow access to lab work product.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCGA § 40-6-392(a)(4) requires production of full test information for blood forcibly taken after a refusal | Massey: § 40-6-392(a)(4) broadly grants discovery of test information regardless of how the State obtained the sample | State: Subsection (a)(4) is limited to persons who "shall submit to a chemical test...at the request of a law enforcement officer" (i.e., those who complied with implied-consent testing at arrest) | Held: Subsection (a)(4) does not apply because Massey refused the officer-requested test; discovery denied |
| Whether the trial court’s denial violated Massey’s due process/fair-trial rights | Massey: Denial of test information prevented meaningful cross-examination and violated constitutional rights | State: No distinct ruling was obtained below on constitutional claims; issues not preserved for appeal | Held: Constitutional claims not preserved for appellate review; court did not reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222 (discovery under § 40-6-392(a)(4) supports broad cross-examination)
- Townsend v. State, 236 Ga. App. 530 (discovery of GC instrument data under § 40-6-392)
- Cottrell v. State, 287 Ga. App. 89 (production under § 40-6-392 may be by subpoena or request)
- Bowen v. State, 274 Ga. 1 (statutes must be read in their statutory scheme)
- McAllister v. State, 325 Ga. App. 583 (search-warrant blood draw after refusal is permissible method to obtain evidence)
- Bazemore v. State, 244 Ga. App. 460 (noting potential alternative means to obtain lab work product)
- Eason v. State, 260 Ga. 445 (discussing access to scientific materials; later partly overruled by Lucious)
- State v. Lucious, 271 Ga. 361 (clarifying scope of earlier precedent)