McMullen v. State, 316 Ga. App. 684

Tammi McMullen was convicted by a jury on two counts of homicide by vehicle in the first degree for a crash while allegedly under the influence of multiple drugs.
The State introduced expert testimony that the combined drug levels would impair driving and a witness testified McMullen did not brake before striking a stationary truck and trailer, killing two people.
McMullen consented to a blood draw at the hospital; the results later showed methamphetamine, morphine, and phentermine in her blood.
The State introduced similar-transaction evidence of a 1997 methamphetamine possession with intent to distribute conviction to show her bent of mind and course of conduct.
McMullen admitted possible drug sources but denied methamphetamine use; she offered other witnesses and a defense expert challenging testing methods.
The trial court admitted the prior conviction over objection; after trial, the court denied a new-trial motion and this appeal followed, with the court ultimately reversing the convictions and allowing retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient for homicide by vehicle?	McMullen argues the evidence fails to prove impairment or causation.	McMullen contends the contradictions show the State failed to prove the necessary elements.	Yes; evidence supported impairment and causation under the statute.
Was the prior meth conviction admissible as similar-transaction evidence?	State says prior act showed course of conduct, intent, bent of mind.	Prior offense is dissimilar and remote; prejudicial and not probative of issue.	No; admission was clearly erroneous and reversed.
Did the absence of implied-consent warnings bar the blood evidence?	State relied on voluntary consent as statutory amendment allowed admission without warnings.	Failure to give implied-consent notices violated statute.	No; implied-consent amendment permits voluntary consent without warnings.
Was the blood-test testimony admissible under Confrontation and as to surrogate testimony?	The expert's testimony based on data and reports is admissible even without performing the tests.	Testimony via surrogate from a non-testifying analyst violates Confrontation.	Yes; the testimony was permissible because the expert reviewed data and had independent analysis, not mere surrogate testimony.

Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640 (Ga. 1991) (prior acts admissible for specific purposes; danger of character evidence)
Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10 (Ga. 2012) (application of standard for reviewing admissibility of other-acts evidence)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause rights and testimonial hearsay)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony and drug-test result admissibility under confrontation)
Jones v. State, nil (nil) (not included)