RODRIGUEZ v. the STATE.
343 Ga. App. 526
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Rodriguez (defendant) had consensual sex with S.F.; she required a condom but noticed it was removed during intercourse. Rodriguez then told her he was “HIV positive.”
- S.F. reported the incident, sought medical advice, and later tested negative for HIV; Rodriguez gave S.F. a one-page Quest Diagnostics report in a health-department parking lot.
- Police interviewed Rodriguez; he admitted being “HIV positive” and having had sex without prior disclosure. He was charged under OCGA § 16-5-60(c) (reckless conduct by an HIV-infected person).
- The State presented Rodriguez’s admissions and the single Quest Diagnostics page as proof of HIV status; no laboratory personnel or medical witness testified about the test or its compliance with state regulations.
- OCGA § 16-5-60 incorporates definitions from OCGA § 31-22-9.1, which defines “HIV infected person” as someone with a “confirmed positive HIV test” — defined as results of at least two separate types of HIV tests that indicate presence of HIV — and further requires the HIV test to be one approved by Department of Community Health (DCH) regulations.
- The trial court instructed the jury that an HIV test must be approved by DCH regulations, but the record contained no evidence that any test or lab met DCH regulatory approval or licensing requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Rodriguez's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved Rodriguez was an “HIV infected person” as defined by OCGA § 31-22-9.1 | The statutory definition requires proof of a confirmed positive HIV test approved by DCH regulations; the State offered no evidence of such approved testing or lab compliance | The State argued it need not prove any additional regulatory approval element and relied on admissions and the Quest report | Reversed: State failed to prove the statutory element that the HIV test was approved under DCH regulations; admissions and the unqualified Quest printout were insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Wood v. State, 219 Ga. 509 (penal statutes strictly construed)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (Confrontation Clause constraints on forensic reports)
- Scott v. State, 299 Ga. 568 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Melton v. State, 282 Ga. App. 685 (State bears burden to prove every essential element)
- Weaver v. State, 299 Ga. App. 718 (statutes in pari materia construed together)