Cronkite v. State

Summary

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a defendant’s motion under the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State seeking testimony about the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code. The court held that the defendant failed to show a logical connection between the requested testimony and facts indicating an error in his specific breath-test results, so the out-of-state witness was not a material witness.

Holdings

1. A defendant seeking out-of-state testimony concerning the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code must show a logical connection between the proposed source-code testimony and facts supporting the existence of an error in the defendant's specific breath-test results; the defendant need not first show a possible error in the source code itself.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the proposed source-code witness was not a material witness and denying Cronkite's motion.
3. Cronkite's claim that he was denied compulsory process lacked merit because the trial court properly exercised its discretion in finding that the proposed witness was not material.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the proposed out-of-state witness was a material witness under former OCGA § 24-10-94 such that Cronkite could compel testimony concerning the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Cronkite's motion to obtain the source-code testimony.
3. Whether Cronkite was denied compulsory process by the denial of his motion.

Disposition

affirmed