Davenport v. State
289 Ga. 399
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Davenport was arrested on Oct. 12, 2007 for DUI and subjected to an Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test resulting in a BAC of 0.156.
- Davenport sought to discover the Intoxilyzer 5000's computer source code located with the Kentucky manufacturer via the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State, OCGA § 24-10-90 et seq.
- The State did not possess the source code, and the trial court denied Davenport's motion for a certificate/ subpoena to compel attendance of the out-of-state witness.
- Davenport was convicted in a bench trial of driving under the influence per se based on the I-5000 result, with the evidence deemed admissible.
- The Court of Appeals held the trial court did not abuse its discretion under the Uniform Act to require a showing of necessity and materiality for an out-of-state witness.
- The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion, adopting a definition of “material witness” under the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs determining an out-of-state witness under the Uniform Act | Davenport argues the out-of-state witness must be shown to be a necessary and material witness. | State contends only materiality (not necessity) is required for the out-of-state proceeding. | The out-of-state witness must be a material witness; higher “necessity” not required by statute. |
| Who decides whether the out-of-state witness is material | Davenport asserts the Georgia court should assess necessity. | State argues the out-of-state judge decides materiality/necessity. | The out-of-state court, not the Georgia court, determines materiality; Georgia assesses material witness status. |
| Does the definition of material witness affect the Uniform Act analysis | Davenport argues for a strict, possibly broader concept of materiality. | State relies on historical interpretations requiring necessity and materiality. | Material witness is defined as a witness who can testify about matters with logical connection to consequential facts. |
| Did the trial court err by denying the certificate under OCGA § 24-10-94(a) | Davenport contends denial violated compulsory process rights. | State maintains the decision was discretionary and properly grounded in the Act. | Not an error; decision to grant the certificate rests in trial court discretion based on the material witness standard. |
| Does the source-code demand implicate constitutional rights | Davenport claims confrontation/due process rights assist obtaining the source code. | Source code is not testimonial; breath-test evidence remains admissible. | Confrontation/right concerns are not violated given the source code is not testimonial and evidence was properly admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davenport v. State, 303 Ga. App. 401 (2010) (Court of Appeals held no abuse of discretion under Uniform Act)
- Hills v. State, 291 Ga. App. 873 (2008) (source of discovery principles under Uniform Act)
- Mafnas v. State, 149 Ga. App. 286 (1979) (necessity/materiality concepts under Uniform Act)
- Chesser v. State, 168 Ga. App. 195 (1983) (necessity/materiality concepts under Uniform Act)
- Wyman v. State, 125 Nev. 46, 217 P.3d 572 (2009) (Nevada definition of material witness under Uniform Act)