Rielli v. StateRielli v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- McMurray
Defendant was indicted for two counts of homicide by vehicle in the first degree, driving under the influence, operating a vehicle without insurance, operating a vehicle without a proper tag and driving too fast for conditions. Defendant entered his plea of guilty of the offenses of operating a vehicle without insurance and of operating a vehicle without a proper tag. At trial the jury returned verdicts of guilty as to the offenses of driving under the influence and driving too fast for conditions. The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to the two counts charging homicide by vehicle and a mistrial was declared as to these alleged offenses.
Defendant was sentenced on each of the counts to which there was a plea or verdict of guilty. Defendant appeals. Held:
1. Defendant contends the trial court erred in qualifying a
“Whether or not a witness is allowed to testify as an expert is a question for the sound discretion of the trial court and such discretion, unless abused, will not be disturbed. Rouse v. Fussell, 106 Ga. App. 259 (4) (126 SE2d 830). Generally nothing more is required to entitle one to give testimony as an expert than that he has been educated in the particular trade or profession; and special knowledge involving a particular subject may be derived from experience as well as study and mental application. Carter v. Marble Products, Inc., 179 Ga. 122 (1) (175 SE 480); Frazier v. State, 138 Ga. App. 640, 645 (227 SE2d 284).” Dennis v. State, 158 Ga. App. 142, 143 (3) (279 SE2d 275). See also Morris v. State, 159 Ga. App. 600, 601 (1) (284 SE2d 103). We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. This enumeration of error is without merit.
2. Defendant contends the trial court erred by restricting his voir dire questions to the jury panel concerning possible bias against the use of alcohol. The trial court refused to permit defendant to ask members of the panel: “[A]re your feelings about the use of alcohol such that you do not feel you could fairly and impartially hear this case?”
“Voir dire should allow both parties an opportunity to ascertain the ability of the prospective jurors to decide the case on its merits, with objectivity and freedom from bias and prior inclination. Whitlock v. State, 230 Ga. 700 (198 SE2d 865) (1973). However, no question should require a response from a juror which might amount to a prejudgment of the case. Jones v. Parrott, 111 Ga. App. 750 (2) (143 SE2d 393) (1965). Since the distinction between questions which ask jurors how they would decide issues of a case if and when such issues are presented and questions which merely inquire whether jurors can start the case without bias or prior inclination is not always crystal clear, the ‘control of the voir dire examination is vested in the sound legal discretion of the trial judge and will not be interfered with by this court unless the record clearly shows an abuse of that discretion.’ Lamb v. State, 241 Ga. 10, 12 (243 SE2d 59) (1978).” Waters v. State, 248 Ga. 355, 363 (283 SE2d 238).
We find no abuse of discretion, particularly since the trial court allowed defense counsel to inquire as to bias in an appropriate manner. Defense counsel was permitted to ask prospective jurors “[I]s there anything about the nature of the charges that this man’s charged with that would make you feel like you couldn’t properly, or you couldn’t fairly hear this case and give a fair verdict?” This enu
3. Defendant contends that certain blood test results should not have been admitted into evidence due to the failure of the State to comply with the provisions of Rule 570-9-.06 (11), Rules of the Department of Public Safety, as reported in the Official Compilations of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Volume 8. Defendant quotes the present language of this regulation which requires the arresting officer to write the name of the person performing a chemical test (excluding the alcohol screening test) and the results of the test on the uniform citation form. The present language of the regulation reflects amendments of the regulation since the date in question, April 25, 1982. At that time the regulation was somewhat ambiguous, but construing the language most favorably to defendant, it directed that the arresting officer write the name of the person performing a chemical test on the uniform citation form. In the case sub judice the name of the person who performed the chemical test does not appear upon the uniform traffic citation charging defendant with driving under the influence.
Defendant argues that the admissibility of chemical test results is dependent upon the State’s compliance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Department of Public Safety. Defendant relies upon our decisions in
State v. Johnston,
160 Ga. App. 71 (286 SE2d 47) (affirmed 249 Ga. 413 (291 SE2d 543));
State v. Baker,
146 Ga. App. 608 (247 SE2d 160); and
Willoughby v. State,
153 Ga. App. 434, 435 (1) (265 SE2d 352). All of these cases involve Rule 570-9-.06 (6), Rules of the Department of Public Safety, as reported in the Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, a rule mandated by the statutory language now contained in
Although purportedly predicated upon Ga. L. 1974, pp. 633, 672 (now
4. During the cross-examination of defendant the following exchange occurred: “Q. Have you, Mr. Rielli, any idea that you can impart to this jury as to how Larry Dean Rielli acts when he’s loaded up
5. Defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of prior convictions in aggravation at sentencing. Defendant objected to the introduction of certified copies of prior convictions on the grounds that he had never received proper notice under
Additionally, we note that “[t]he purpose of making the defendant’s record known to him is to allow counsel and the defendant to determine if there are any defects which would render these documents inadmissible during the presentencing phase of the trial. [Cits.]”
Johnson v. State,
171 Ga. App. 851, 854 (321 SE2d 402). That purpose was satisfied here when the trial court offered to continue the sentence hearing in order to permit defense counsel any necessary additional time. Defense counsel’s refusal of the trial court’s offer rendered any error harmless. Adequate notice was given as to the evidence in question and no reason has been shown requiring that this case be remanded for another sentencing hearing.
Williams v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Deen, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.