Jаmes D. Carr appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of driving a vehicle under the influence of drugs and improper lane usage.
Carr was observed driving a tractor-trailer rig on Interstate 75 weaving aimlessly from lane to lane. After he failed to respond to a Geоrgia state trooper’s efforts to stop him with flashing lights and a siren, two additional state troopers and a Department of Transportаtion enforcement employee were dispatched in their vehicles to assist in the stop. The four vehicles, with activated lights and sirеns, boxed in the moving tractor-trailer, and, while avoiding a collision with the erratically weaving rig, gradually decelerated until Carr finally stopрed. Carr was found in the driver’s seat unresponsive to the officers, staring straight ahead, his hands tightly gripping the steering wheel. Carr was unable to maintain his balance and had to be assisted by the officers to get out of the rig and walk. The officers testified that, although they did not detect any of the usual signs that Carr was under the influence of alcohol, he clearly appeared to be under the influence of some kind of intoxicant or drug to the extent that he was an unsafe driver. Carr was arrested for driving under the influence and later charged with driving under the influence оf certain drugs to the extent that it was less safe for him, to drive. OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (2).
After being read implied consent rights, Carr consented to a State-administerеd chemical test of his blood for the purpose of determining whether he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Thereafter, Carr was taken to a local hospital where blood was with *777 drawn from him for the State-administered test. At that time, Carr also had his own independent testing done. The blood withdrawn was analyzed at the State Crime Lab. A forensic toxicologist from the State Crime Lab testified at trial that Carr’s blоod tested positive for the presence of the drugs carisoprodol and its metabolite, meprobamate, and diazepam and its metabolite, nordiazepam. The toxicologist testified that both carisoprodol and diazepam are prescriptiоn drugs with sedative effects and that the unusually high level of carisoprodol found in Carr’s blood was enough by itself to have caused Carr’s erratiс driving and unresponsive demeanor.
1. Carr claims the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike the testimony of the toxicologist as to the results of the State-administered chemical testing of his blood because the State failed to present probative evidence that the person who withdrew his blood for the test was qualified as required under OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (2).
OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (2) provides in part that “[w]hen a person shall undergo a chemiсal test at the request of a law enforcement officer [under OCGA § 40-5-55], only a physician, registered nurse, laboratory technician, emеrgency medical technician, or other qualified person may withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic сontent therein. . . .” Although the statutory requirement of OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (2) that blood be withdrawn by a qualified person refers only to testing of blood “for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content. . .” (emрhasis supplied), the testing referred to by the statute is done pursuant to OCGA § 40-5-55 (a), which provides for a driver’s implied consent “to a chemical test or tests of his or her blood . . . for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol or any other drug. . . .” (Emphasis suppliеd.) Construing the two statutes together, we conclude that, since the chemical testing serves the dual purpose of detecting the prеsence of alcohol or drugs, the statutory requirement that blood used in the testing be withdrawn by a qualified person applies to all bloоd test results showing drug content as well as alcoholic content. Accordingly, the “qualified person” requirement of OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (2) applies in this case even though the blood test results showed only drug content rather than alcoholic content.
OCGA § 40-6-392 establishes mandatory requirements for thе admission of chemical blood test results in criminal cases arising out of violations of OCGA § 40-6-391 in which such violations are an essential elemеnt of the charged offense.
Harden v. State,
Nevertheless, when the State introduced the testimony of the toxicologist as to the results of the blood test, Carr made no objection. Instead, Carr waited until after the State rested its case and then moved to strike the toxicologist’s testimony on the basis that the State failed to prove the blood was withdrawn by a person qualified under OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (2). By failing to object when the testimony was offered, Carr waived any objection which he could have made. “It is well settled in this state that it is too late to urge objections to the admission of evidence after it has been admitted without objection.” (Citations and punctuatiоn omitted.)
Henderson v. State,
There was no challenge to the vаlidity of the blood test results. Although the State’s failure to lay a proper foundation by proving the blood was withdrawn by a person qualified under OCGA § 40-6-392 (a) (2) affected the admissibility of the test results, there was no evidence that the probative value of the test was in any way affected. “[A] distinсtion is to be drawn between illegal testimony and secondary evidence or other evidence which is legal in itself because it is of рrobative value but is inadmissible until the proper foundation for its reception has been laid.”
Patton v. Bank of LaFayette,
2. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict as to both offenses.
Jackson v. Virginia,
Judgment affirmed.