Young v. State
324 Ga. App. 127
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- This appeal covers ten DUI cases in Athens-Clarke County where interlocutory review was granted of the trial court’s consolidated denial of motions to determine the relevance and materiality of the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code for obtaining its production from CMI, Inc. in Kentucky.
- The defendants sought to use the Uniform Act to compel production of or access to the proprietary source code and related tools via out-of-state subpoenas or orders.
- The trial court held the source code was not material under Davenport and Cronkite, and denied the motions.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the defendants failed to show a logical connection between the source code and the consequential facts, with Habib offering the only case-specific potential error—crying and hyperventilating during testing.
- Nine appellants offered generic assertions of materiality without tying the code to a specific testing error, so the trial court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion.
- The decision emphasizes Davenport and Cronkite and applies OCGA §§ 24-13-90 to 24-13-97 (Uniform Act) to determine material witness status for out-of-state evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uniform Act material witness standard applied? | Appellants argue the out-of-state source code is material as a witness under the Uniform Act. | State contends Davenport/Cronkite require a concrete logical connection to testing errors. | Denial affirmed; no material witness shown. |
| Constitutional challenges to the Uniform Act reviewable? | Appellants claim due process and related rights apply to the Act. | Trial court did not rule on constitutionality; not reviewable on appeal. | Not reviewable on appeal. |
| Davenport/Cronkite standard satisfied by evidence? | Appellants rely on expert assertions linking code to potential errors. | No facts showing actual error or logical connection. | Nine appellants failed; Habib not sufficient to establish materiality. |
| Credibility and materiality of expert testimony? | Workman’s testimony suggested possible impact of crying/hyperventilation. | Court determined Workman not credible enough to establish materiality. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Habib’s evidence insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davenport v. State, 289 Ga. 399 (2011) (defines 'material witness' and governs certificates under Uniform Act)
- Cronkite v. State, 293 Ga. 476 (2013) (applies Davenport to source-code materiality in Uniform Act context)
- Yeary v. State, 289 Ga. 394 (2011) (out-of-state corporation as material witness under Uniform Act)
- Minder v. Georgia, 183 U.S. 559 (1902) (origins of Uniform Act framework)