Brice v. State

Mary Margaret Brice appeals from her conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent she was a less safe driver. In this appeal, Brice contends the trial court erred by 1 admitting the arresting officer’s implied consent card; 2 denying her motions in limine to exclude the testimony of witnesses not listed by the State in discovery; 3 allowing the solicitor to state in his place the factual basis for impeaching a prosecution rebuttal witness; 4 denying a motion for a mistrial after allowing unnoticed witnesses to testify for the State; 6 denying her amended motion for new trial based upon prosecutorial misconduct; and 7 denying her motion to recuse the trial judge. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

1. In her first enumeration of error, Brice contends the trial court erred when it admitted the arresting officer’s implied consent card over her objection. The arresting officer testified that he read the implied consent warning to Brice from a card he carried at the time of her arrest, and read the warning on this card during his testimony. A photocopy of the officer’s card was admitted into evidence by the trial court. Brice’s only objection to the admission of the card during the trial was that it was not relevant. As a result, we will not consider any other objections to its admission raised for the first time on appeal. See Kinney v. State, 234 Ga. App. 733, 736 4 506 SE2d 441 1998; Hestley v. State, 216 Ga. App. 573, 575-76 2 455 SE2d 333 1995.