Court Opinion

ID: 9569827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:17:53.300989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:08.456755
License: Public Domain

Mikell, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully in Divisions 1 and 3 and in the judgment. As to Division 2, I believe that the trial court did abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness, Dr. Citron, regarding the reliability of the machine’s results. Georgia law favors the introduction of evidence, especially evidence in a criminal trial which might aid a jury in deciding the weight and credibility to be given to scientific tests. But the error was harmless for the reasons given in-the majority opinion: the breath sample showed a blood alcohol concentration of more than twice the legal limit and there was no proffer that the testimony would account for an allegedly erroneous result of that magnitude. Moreover, impeachment of scientific evi*102dence is unlikely to impress a jury when the motorist admits to the arresting officer that the motorist is “drunk.”
Decided February 21, 2003
Reconsideration denied March 7,2003
Head, Thomas, Webb & Willis, William C. Head, for appellant.
Joseph J. Drolet, Solicitor-General, Craig E. Miller, Assistant Solicitor-General, for appellee.