Cronkite v. State
293 Ga. 476
| Ga. | 2013Background
- Defendant Weston D. Cronkite, charged with DUI, moved under the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State (former OCGA § 24-10-94) to obtain testimony from an out-of-state witness about the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code used on his breath test.
- Cronkite’s expert testified about the Intoxilyzer’s operation and that the software can generate error messages (e.g., for mouth alcohol), but said he could not determine parameter cutoffs without the source code.
- Parties stipulated Cronkite had a dental implant and lower retainer; Cronkite argued these could trap mouth alcohol and potentially cause an erroneous reading.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the out-of-state witness was not a “material witness.” The Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals properly applied Davenport v. State and affirmed the denial, holding Cronkite failed to show the source-code testimony was logically connected to consequential facts showing a possible error in his test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the out-of-state witness who could testify about the Intoxilyzer source code was a "material witness" under former OCGA § 24-10-94 | Cronkite: source code could reveal software parameters and potential flaws; implant/retainer could cause mouth alcohol that the software should have detected, so source-code testimony is material | State: Cronkite offered only speculative possibility of mouth alcohol and no facts showing an actual error or discrepancy in his specific breath test; thus testimony is not materially connected to consequential facts | Court: Affirmed — not material; testimony must bear a logical connection to facts suggesting an error in the specific test, which Cronkite did not show |
| Whether denial of the motion violated Cronkite’s compulsory-process right | Cronkite: denial prevented obtaining potentially exculpatory technical evidence | State: denial was within trial court discretion because materiality not shown; compulsory-process claim fails | Court: Denial did not violate compulsory process — trial court did not abuse discretion under Davenport standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Davenport v. State, 289 Ga. 399 (2011) (defines "material witness" as one who can testify to matters having a logical connection with consequential facts)
- Cronkite v. State, 317 Ga. App. 57 (2012) (Court of Appeals decision applying Davenport to deny compulsory-process relief)
- State v. Bastos, 985 So.2d 37 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (denial of source-code testimony where defendant failed to show particularized discrepancies in machine operation)