Yeary v. State
289 Ga. 394
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Yeary was convicted of DUI per se based on an Intoxilyzer 5000 reading of 0.179.
- Yeary sought to compel production of the Intoxilyzer source code from an out-of-state Kentucky corporation under OCGA § 24-10-90 et seq. (Uniform Act).
- The trial court denied the motion; Yeary appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, citing a narrow reading of the Act.
- The Court of Appeals held the Uniform Act could compel attendance of out-of-state witnesses but not production of documents alone.
- Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the Act permits obtaining material evidence from an out-of-state corporate entity without naming a specific witness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uniform Act authority to obtain evidence from an out-of-state corporation | Yeary: Act permits production of material evidence via a corporate entity. | State: Act limits to testimony, not production absent a named witness. | Yes, Act authorizes production from an out-of-state corporation. |
| Corporation as a 'person' and material witness | Yeary: a corporation can be a material witness under the Act. | State: corporate status permits witness designation to produce evidence. | Corporation can be a material witness and possess material evidence. |
| Designation of a corporate human agent after certificate | Yeary: designation of human agent can follow issuance of materiality certificate. | State: require identifying the individual to be compelled at the outset. | No requirement to identify a human agent before the certificate. |
| Remand and correct scope of the Uniform Act procedure | Yeary: proper procedure under the Act was not followed by the appellate court. | State: the existing record supports the trial court's denial. | Vacate judgment; remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wollesen v. State of Ga., 242 Ga. App. 317, 529 S.E.2d 630 (2000) (recognizes ability to compel out-of-state witness and production of materials)
- French v. State, 288 Ga.App. 775, 655 S.E.2d 224 (2007) (identification of specific person/entity required for material records in some contexts)
- General Motors Corp. v. State, 357 So.2d 1045 (Florida 3rd Dist. Ct. App. 1978) (Uniform Act not applicable to mere production of documents when entity is authorized to do business in the requesting state)
- CMI Inc. v. Landrum, 64 So.3d 693 (2010) (Florida app serves as contrast on Uniform Act application to subpoena duces tecum)
- Reader's Digest Assn. v. Dauphinot, 794 S.W.2d 608 (Tex.App.1990) (out-of-state corp; subpoena to Texas agent upheld under Uniform Act)
- Davenport v. State, 289 Ga. 399, 711 S.E.2d 699 (2011) (concurring view on necessity/materiality under Uniform Act)