☢ test - Í

392(a)(4), and the trial court correctly denied Massey's discovery request made pursuant to those provisions. [ FN1. We render no opinion as to whether a defendant charged with a misdemeanor violation of OCGA § 40–6–391, who refused to submit to the chemical testing requested by the arresting officer pursuant to OCGA § 40–5–55, may be entitled by means other than OCGA § 40–6–392(a)(4) to obtain a copy of a gas chromatograph printout or other scientific work product relied on to generate alcohol concentration test results for the State. See Bazemore v. State, 244 Ga.App. 460, 462, n. 1, 535 S.E.2d 830 (2000); Eason v. State, 260 Ga. 445, 396 S.E.2d 492 (1990), overruled in part, State v. Lucious, 271 Ga. 361, 365, 518 S.E.2d 677 (1999). ] ” Holowiak v. State, 308 Ga.App. 887, 709 S.E.2d 887 (March 29, 2011). Per se DUI conviction affirmed; since “the only discoverable information from an intoxilyzer test under OCGA § 40–6–392(a)(4) is the computer printout of the test result,” see Stetz (October 28, 2009), below, “the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Holowiak's discovery request seeking the production of the mobile command unit in which the Intoxilyzer test was performed or the Intoxilyzer machine itself.” Disapproved on other grounds, see Davenport v. State , 289 Ga. 399, 711 S.E.2d 699 (June 20, 2011). Jacobson v. State, 306 Ga.App. 815, 703 S.E.2d 376 (November 16, 2010). Defendant’s DUI conviction affirmed. 1. Trial court properly admitted defendant’s breath test results although the State “failed to provide a copy of the results to Jacobson during discovery, in violation of OCGA § 17-16-23. The uncontroverted evidence indicated, however, that Jacobson received a copy of the test results from the jail staff immediately after the results were recorded. The trial court did not err, therefore, in determining that Jacobson was not harmed by the state's discovery violation. See Vincent v. State, 228 Ga.App. 691(1) (492 S.E.2d 604) (1997) (‘As defendant had already been provided with a copy of the test results, he was not harmed by any failure by the State to provide the same pursuant to discovery.’)” 2. Trial court properly refused “to admit maintenance logs showing when the Intoxilyzer 5000 used to conduct his breath test was taken out of service. … Intoxilyzer 5000 maintenance logs are not even relevant enough to be discoverable pursuant to OCGA § 40-6- 392(a)(4). Stetz v. State , 301 Ga.App. 458, 687 S.E.2d 839 (2009).” State v. Tan, 305 Ga.App. 55, 699 S.E.2d 74 (July 8, 2010). Trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion to suppress breath test slip from Intox 5000 showing defendant’s refusal. Defendant contended that the slip was a “scientific report,” required to be served at least ten days prior to trial, but Court of Appeals disagrees: “[A]n intoxilyzer printout showing the results of the instrument's analysis of the blood alcohol concentration in a defendant's breath would be subject to discovery under OCGA § 17-16-23. See Bazemore v. State, 244 Ga.App. 460, 462(1) (535 S.E.2d 830) (2000) (holding results of gas chromatography test and documents pertaining to the ‘actual test of defendant's blood’ discoverable). But in this case no test or analysis was performed because the sample was insufficient, and the breath test slip does not show any test results. It reflects only a measurement of breath volume. There was no analysis by the instrument of that breath volume. Accordingly, we conclude that a printout reflecting an ‘insufficient sample,’ and thus no analysis and no result, is not subject to discovery under OCGA § 17-16-23. See Brown v. State, 191 Ga.App. 357, 358(1) (381 S.E.2d 543) (1989) (holding printout showing insufficient sample from breath test not subject to discovery under OCGA § 17-7- 211, which was repealed and reenacted to apply only to misdemeanor cases. See OCGA § 17-16-23; Ga. L.1994, p. 1895, § 4); Looney v. State, 180 Ga.App. 693, 694(2) (350 S.E.2d 29) (1986) (same as to testimony regarding insufficient sample).” “The breath test slip's measurement of breath volume was a mere recordation of data. No scientific analysis of that data occurred and no conclusion was drawn. Accordingly, the breath test slip in this case lacks the ‘common element’ required for a scientific report described in Rayburn [ v. State, 234 Ga.App. 482 (506 S.E.2d 876) (1998).” State v. Smiley, 301 Ga.App. 778, 689 S.E.2d 94 (December 22, 2009). Trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion to suppress breath test results affirmed based on failure to provide “full information” pursuant to defendant’s discovery motion. Defendant requested, among other things, Intoxilyzer source codes; trial court found State’s claim that it didn’t possess them “not persuasive.” Court of Appeals affirms, noting the lack of a transcript of the suppression hearing. “[W]ithout a transcript of the motion hearing, we must presume that the trial court found evidence of bad faith on the part of the state in not producing the requested information. Accordingly, we are unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in suppressing the results of the breath test.” Johnson, concurring specially: “It is important to note that the ruling in this case does not affect our decisions in Hills [May 15, 2008, under sub-heading Source Codes, below] and Mathis [ v. State , 298 Ga.App. 817, 681 S.E.2d 179 (June 18, 2009)] . ” Stetz v. State, 301 Ga.App. 458, 687 S.E.2d 839 (October 28, 2009). Trial court properly denied defendant’s demand for more discovery in his DUI prosecution; defendant received “full information” regarding his intoxilyzer test where State “provided Stetz with the accusation, a list of witnesses, and scientific reports.” Defendant requested log books, operator