Parker v. State
296 Ga. 586
| Ga. | 2015Background
- Defendant Jason Parker was charged with DUI (per se and less-safe) and speeding after breath tests on an Intoxilyzer 5000 produced .158/.157 readings.
- Parker moved under Georgia’s out-of-state witness act for material-witness certificates to obtain CMI, Inc. (manufacturer) and employees to secure the machine’s source code.
- Trial court held an evidentiary hearing (Parker proffered documentary evidence only); the State objected to several proffers as hearsay.
- The trial court sustained the hearsay objections, denied Parker’s motion for material-witness certificates, then admitted the breath-test printout at trial and convicted Parker.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding such hearings are fact-finding proceedings subject to the Evidence Code hearsay rules.
- Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether hearsay is admissible in material-witness certificate proceedings under the new Evidence Code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an out-of-state material-witness certificate proceeding is a "fact-finding proceeding" subject to the new Evidence Code | Parker conceded it is a fact-finding proceeding but argued hearsay should be allowed under the Code’s exceptions | State argued the Evidence Code (including hearsay rules) applies and excludes Parker’s proffers | Yes — the proceeding is a fact-finding proceeding under OCGA § 24-1-2(b) |
| Whether the Evidence Code’s enumerated exceptions exempt material-witness proceedings from hearsay limits (OCGA § 24-1-2(c)(3) — extradition/rendition) | Parker urged similarity to extradition/rendition justifies exception | State argued similarity is insufficient; only listed exceptions apply | No — resemblance to listed proceedings is not enough; the statute’s list is exclusive |
| Whether preliminary questions about a witness’s qualification/materiality fall under OCGA § 24-1-2(c)(1)/§ 24-1-104 so hearsay does not apply | Parker argued materiality/qualification are § 24-1-104 preliminary factual questions, so hearsay and other rules (except privileges) do not apply | State disputed applicability or urged stricter hearsay limits | Yes — determining materiality/qualification are preliminary questions under § 24-1-104, so hearsay rules (except privileges) do not apply; hearsay may be considered for weight |
| Remedy for erroneous exclusion of proffered hearsay evidence | Parker sought vacatur of convictions and remand to consider proffers | State opposed reversal | Court reversed in part: vacated order denying material-witness certificates and remanded to permit consideration of unprivileged proffers; possible new trial if certificates later issued and witnesses summoned |
Key Cases Cited
- Davenport v. State, 289 Ga. 399 (discusses material-witness test: witness must have logical connection to consequential facts)
- Yeary v. State, 289 Ga. 394 (corporation may be a "person" and required to produce documents as material witness)
- Cronkite v. State, 293 Ga. 476 (explains need for findings about witness and case for materiality)
- Wollesen v. State, 242 Ga. App. 317 (historical practice allowing hearsay in out-of-state witness proceedings)
- Moore v. State, 290 Ga. 805 (remedy framework when evidentiary procedures require re-hearing or retrial)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (trial court may consider hearsay in preliminary factfinding and weigh its reliability)
- Parker v. State, 326 Ga. App. 217 (Court of Appeals decision below holding Evidence Code hearsay rules applied)