Parker v. State
326 Ga. App. 217
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parker was charged with speeding and DUI and moved for a certificate of materiality under OCGA § 24-13-90 et seq to obtain out-of-state testimony on the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code.
- The trial court denied the motion, ruling the proffered evidence was hearsay and not shown to be material.
- Parker waived a jury trial, and the case proceeded with stipulations, resulting in a conviction on the charged counts.
- Parker appealed asserting five enumerations challenging the certificate denial and related issues.
- Facts at issue: Parker was stopped for 72 mph in a 55 mph zone; he smelled of alcohol, admitted drinking earlier, showed impairment, and had BAC readings of 0.157 and 0.158 on the Intoxilyzer 5000.
- The court addressed materiality standards under Davenport and Cronkite, and held that Parker failed to provide admissible evidence at the motion hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materiality ruling on out-of-state witness | Parker argues the witness is material and the court should issue the certificate. | State contends the proffer is hearsay and insufficient to show materiality. | No error; denial affirmed for lack of admissible material evidence. |
| Logical connection between source code and test results | Parker showed the source code relates to potential breath-test errors. | State argues there was no demonstrated logical connection to test-result errors. | Parker failed to establish a logical link; certificate denied. |
| State possession and discovery obligations | Source code is in State/CMI possession and must be disclosed or accessible. | State is not obligated to produce information not in possession; Smiley is not binding precedent. | State not required to produce source code absent possession/control; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davenport v. State, 289 Ga. 399 (2011) (defines material witness under Uniform Act and procedure for out-of-state attendance)
- Cronkite v. State, 293 Ga. 476 (2013) (requires logical connection between source-code testimony and breath-test error)
- Hills v. State, 291 Ga. App. 873 (2008) (discovery-related denial where state ownership/control is not shown)
- State v. Smiley, 301 Ga. App. 778 (2009) (addressed possession/control requirement for out-of-state subpoena; not binding precedent)
- Arnold v. State, 228 Ga. App. 137 (1997) (continuance provisions and materiality considerations differ from motions under OCGA § 24-1-2)