Spann v. State
318 Ga. App. 740
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Spann was arrested for DUI in May 2007 and convicted after a stipulated bench trial in August 2010.
- On appeal, Spann challenged admission of similar-transaction evidence and the denial of an out-of-state subpoena; the appellate court remanded for the subpoena issue in light of Davenport v. State.
- Following remand, the trial court again denied a certificate for an out-of-state witness, holding the witness not material.
- The remand instructed the court to determine whether the out-of-state witness was material under OCGA § 24-10-94 and whether a certificate should issue.
- Spann sought the source code testimony from the Kentucky-based manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 5000 to challenge the breath test accuracy.
- The trial court’s later ruling relied on safeguards to reject materiality, instead of applying Davenport’s materiality standard; the record on appeal is incomplete regarding evidentiary hearings.]
- The case is remanded for the trial court to apply Davenport’s materiality standard and, if appropriate, to issue a certificate for the out-of-state witness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the out-of-state witness properly deemed non-material under Davenport? | Spann argues the court failed to apply Davenport’s materiality standard. | Spann contends the court should have found the witness material to challenge the breath test. | Vacated and remanded for proper application of Davenport’s materiality standard. |
| Did the trial court err by not treating the source code as material to Spann’s defense? | Spann asserts the source code is material to challenge the breath-test accuracy. | State contends safeguards render the source code non-material. | Remand to determine materiality under Davenport. |
| Should the appellate record be supplemented to review evidentiary hearings? | Spann requested transcripts of three hearings for review. | State did not oppose supplementation on remand. | Record remains incomplete; not decided here, pending remand. |
| Does the prior ruling on similar-transaction evidence remain binding? | Spann relies on prior ruling that admitted similar-transaction evidence. | State unchanged; rulings binding absent changes. | Binding; no change in evidentiary posture; previously decided ruling stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spann v. State, 310 Ga.App. 575 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (remanded on subpoena issue in light of Davenport)
- Davenport v. State, 289 Ga. 399 (Ga. 2011) (defines material witness; Georgia courts determine materiality under OCGA § 24-10-94)
- Cronkite v. State, 317 Ga. App. 57 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (reviews Davenport standard; cites 2012 decision)
- Pierce v. State, 278 Ga.App. 162 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (binding effect of prior appellate rulings in same case)