GA Code § 24-13-90 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 24 - Evidence|Chapter 13 - Securing Attendance of Witnesses and Production and Preservation of Evidence|Article 4 - Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without the State|§ 24-13-90. Short Title

 This article shall be known and may be cited as "The Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State."    (Code 1981, §24-13-90, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)   Law reviews.   - For annual survey on criminal law, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 83 (2012). For annual survey of evidence law, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 63 (2015).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Editor's notes.   - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-90 are included in the annotations for this Code section.   Subpoena duces tecum request not sufficiently specific.    - Trial court properly denied a child molestation defendant's motion for a subpoena duces tecum to obtain out-of-state records pertaining to the victims. The defendant failed to identify any specific person, entity, agency, or records custodian who should be directed to produce the records and thus did not satisfy the former Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State, former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-90 et seq. French v. State, 288 Ga. App. 775, 655 S.E.2d 224 (2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-90).   Defendant failed to show evidence sought was material to defendant's case.    - Trial court did not err in finding that a defendant had not made a sufficient showing that evidence of adjustments made in the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code for asthma sufferers was material to the defendant's case, which was the defendant's burden under the former Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without the State, former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-90 et seq (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-13-90 et seq.). Davenport v. State, 303 Ga. App. 401, 693 S.E.2d 510 (2010) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-90).   Wrong standard applied for refusing certificate.    - Trial court applied the wrong standard when the court refused to issue a certificate under the former Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State, former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-90 et seq. (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-13-90 et seq.), to secure the appearance of an out-of-state witness because the trial court concluded that the defendant failed to show that the witness was necessary and material, but the trial court simply had to determine whether a witness was "material." DiMauro v. State, 310 Ga. App. 526, 714 S.E.2d 105 (2011) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-90).   Error in application of hearsay rules to material witness consideration.    - Trial court erred in applying the hearsay rules to exclude the appellant's proffered documents from the evidence the court considered in ruling on a motion for material witness certificates as to the Kentucky-based manufacturer of the breathalyzer because an exception under O.C.G.A. § 24-1-2(c)(1) applied. Parker v. State, 296 Ga. 586, 769 S.E.2d 329 (2015).    Cited in Young v. State, 324 Ga. App. 127, 749 S.E.2d 423 (2013).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   25B Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Witnesses, § 1.