This case appears before us for the third time. See
Bazemore v. State, 225
Ga. App. 741 (
In
Bazemore I,
we affirmed Bazemore’s conviction for driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration and speeding. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of
Price v. State,
The trial court reconsidered, issued an order upholding its previous decision to quash the subpoena and entered a new judgment of conviction on the charge of driving with an unlawful alcohol concentration. The trial court held that it quashed the subpoena both because Bazemore failed to meet his initial burden of showing “the relevancy of the majority of the documents sought by the subpoena” and because the subpoena was unreasonable and oppressive. We now reconsider that decision.
1. As stated in
Bazemore II,
“When a motion to quash is filed, the party serving the subpoena has the initial burden of showing the documents sought are relevant. OCGA § 24-10-22; [cit.]”
Bazemore II,
Bazemore was charged with driving with a 0.13 blood alcohol level. As described in the trial court’s order, Bazemore’s subpoena *461 ordered the State’s forensic chemist to produce the following items:
a. all chain of custody documents;
b. [as the same relates to the analysis of Bazemore’s blood sample,] all notes, memos, reports, statistics, submission sheets, worksheets, tracking sheets, chromatographs, and any information pertaining to any and all standards and controls utilized in testing;
c. all testing manuals and training materials utilized by the G.B.I. Crime Lab to learn blood sample testing and analysis for alcohol content;
d. all permits and certificates regarding the technician, who drew the sample of Defendant’s blood . . . ;
e. all written techniques, methods, or procedures approved by the Division of Forensic Sciences of the G.B.I. to ascertain qualifications and competency of personnel drawing and analyzing Defendant’s blood; .
f. all written techniques, methods, or procedures which have been approved by the Division of Forensic Sciences of the G.B.I. regarding proper testing/analysis procedures to be followed by the chemist who analyzed Defendant’s blood;
g. all written techniques, methods, or procedures which have been approved by the Division of Forensic Sciences of the G.B.I. regarding the proper operation, maintenance, testing and calibration of the Gas Chromatograph used to analyze Defendant’s blood; and
h. all certificates of the Gas Chromatograph used to analyze Defendant’s blood which show that it is a design approved by the G.B.I. in accordance with OCGA § 50-13-1 thru 50-13-44 and it has all its electronic and operating components in good working order pursuant to OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (1) (A).
Bazemore contends that it met its burden of showing the documents it sought were relevant. Bazemore argued that under Eason he was entitled to the information for the purpose of cross-examination and impeachment. He urged that he was entitled to all facts the chemist relied on in forming his opinion. He intended to use the material to impeach the witness, and he planned to have the material reviewed by his own expert. He argued, “If [the State is] going to try to introduce a blood test, then it’s relevant for me to know how [the chemist] came to his conclusion, so I can cross-examine him.”
OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (4) provides that the defendant is entitled to full information concerning the tests administered to him: “Upon the request of the person who shall submit to a chemical test or tests
*462
at the request of a law enforcement officer, full information concerning the test or tests shall be made available to him or his attorney.”
Price
held that this Code section allows for broader discovery than under the former criminal discovery provisions that allowed discovery only of written scientific reports.
Price,
Eason
held that a defendant “has the right to subpoena certain materials from the State Crime Lab chemist for the purpose of cross-examination.”
Eason,
Thus, Bazemore sustained his burden of showing relevance of at least some of the documents requested in the subpoena. Under Price, Eason, and Townsend, the documents requested in sections “a” and “b,” which pertain to the actual test of defendant’s blood, including the gas chromatography results, were relevant and discoverable. Bazemore is authorized to obtain this information under OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (4) for the purpose of cross-examination of the State’s laboratory test results. As quoted in Eason,
A basic principle of scientific testing is that careful records of test procedures and results are to be scrupulously maintained. A scientific test without an accompanying report of the testing environment, number of trials, raw results and analyzed data is in reality no test at all.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Eason,
*463
With regard to the documents requested in sections “c,” “e,” “f,” and “g,” our decision is controlled by
Bazemore I.
Division 5 of
Bazemore I
is. the only section of that case affected by the
Price
decision and thus by the Supreme Court’s remand. See
Bazemore II,
As for the remaining documents, Bazemore did not show that they are relevant. In sections “d” and “h,” Bazemore requested documents that go to part of the State’s burden of proof with regard to blood alcohol tests. As shown in
Bazemore I,
the State must prove “at trial” the qualifications of the person who drew the blood pursuant to OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (2).
Bazemore I,
Finally, “there is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case. [Cits.]”
Lucious,
The right to confrontation is a “trial right,” guaranteeing a defendant the ability to confront and question adverse witnesses at trial. [Cits.] As a trial right, it “does not include the power to require the pretrial disclosure of any and all information that might be useful in contradicting unfavorable testimony,” [cit.] and does not guarantee “cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish. (Cit.)” [Cit.]
Lucious,
2. The second question is whether the subpoena was overly broad.
[A] trial court has discretion to quash an unreasonable and oppressive subpoena, and abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard of review in such situations. OCGA § 24-10- *464 22 (b) (1); [cit.] Whether the trial court should quash a subpoena depends on the nature and scope of the discovery request. [Cit.]
Townsend,
In response to a motion to quash, a court may quash, modify, or partially quash a subpoena. OCGA § 24-10-22. See also
Henderson v. State,
The State argued that the subpoena itself showed that it was unreasonable and oppressive, in that it sought numerous documents. Although Bazemore’s subpoena sought much more than the subpoena in Price, it sought several relevant documents, and the court should have allowed discovery of those documents. Bazemore specifically requested chain of custody documents and documents related to his actual blood test, including the gas chromatography results. Under OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (4) and Price, it was error to quash these requests.
3. As we held in Bazemore II, “Because the testimony of the State’s chemist was evidence of Bazemore’s unlawful blood level, we cannot state with any certainty from the record before us that any error in quashing the subpoena would be harmless.” Id. at 893. Therefore, following Price, we reverse.
4. Construed in favor of the verdict, the evidence, including the blood test results, was sufficient to convict.
Jackson v. Virginia,
Judgment reversed.
Notes
Complicating matters is that last year, the Supreme Court overruled
Eason
to the extent it allows a defendant to unilaterally obtain evidence of scientific work product.
Lucious,