Court Opinion

ID: 9781427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:37:28.629018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:26.380319
License: Public Domain

HINES, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because the opinion of the majority upturns well-founded Georgia precedent, and ignores obvious legislative intent, common sense, and the facts of this case.
As noted by the majority, this Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Davenport v. State, 303 Ga. App. 401 (693 SE2d 510) (2010), to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Emily Davenport, who was. convicted of driving with an illegal concentration of alcohol, OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5), failed to make a showing sufficient under the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State, OCGA § 24-10-90 et seq. (“the Act”) to authorize the issuance of a subpoena to an out-of-state witness in order to attempt to discover the computer source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000 (“1-5000”), the breath testing machine utilized to obtain and test her breath sample. A source code is the instruction followed by a computing device in processing information. Hills v. State, 291 Ga. App. 873 (663 SE2d 265) (2008).
On October 12, 2007, Davenport was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, taken into custody, and given a breath-alcohol test on the 1-5000. The 1-5000 registered Davenport’s blood-alcohol content at 0.156 grams. She was then charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and failure to maintain her lane. Davenport moved to require the State to produce the I-5000’s computer source code, but the State did not have the source code in its possession or control. She sought to discover the source code by requesting an order authorizing the issuance of a subpoena to the Kentucky company that manufactured the 1-5000. Davenport claimed that she had suffered from asthma since she was a young child, and she sought the source code in an attempt to prove that the 1-5000 did not accurately register the blood-alcohol content of individuals with respiratory illnesses like hers; more specifically, she sought to compel the attendance of an out-of-state witness who worked for the manufacturer. Citing Hills v. State, supra, the trial court denied Davenport’s motion, concluding that the source code was not discoverable. Following a bench trial, at which Davenport stipulated to the evidence, she was found guilty of driving with an illegal concentration of alcohol in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (5). Davenport appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising the sole issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying her *406motion for an order authorizing issuance of a subpoena to the out-of-state 1-5000 manufacturer. The Court of Appeals concluded that, based upon the particular facts of the case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to issue the order sought by Davenport. In so doing, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the holding in its long-established precedent that the party seeking the out-of-state witness has the burden of demonstrating that the sought witness is “necessary and material” to the case. Davenport v. State, supra at 402. See Welch v. State, 207 Ga. App. 27 (8) (427 SE2d 22) (1992); Baines v. State, 201 Ga. App. 354 (5) (411 SE2d 95) (1991); Chesser v. State, 168 Ga. App. 195, 196 (308 SE2d 589) (1983); Mafnas v. State, 149 Ga. App. 286 (1) (254 SE2d 409) (1979). See also Holowiak v. State, 308 Ga. App. 887 (709 SE2d 39) (2011).
The Court of Appeals was expressly and properly assessing the sufficiency of Davenport’s showing before the trial court under the provisions of OCGA § 24-10-94 (a), which is plainly the subsection of the Act by which an out-of-state witness can be compelled to attend and testify at a criminal proceeding in Georgia. Yet, the majority, citing as its support the statutory law of a foreign state, concludes that whether the sought witness is “necessary and material” is the test solely under OCGA § 24-10-92 (b), which addresses the circumstance of a Georgia witness summoned to testify in a criminal proceeding in another state. It then accuses the Court of Appeals of repeatedly “misreading” the statutory scheme, and concludes that a Georgia trial judge presented with a request for a certificate under the Act is to decide only whether the sought out-of-state witness is a “material witness.” But, such a conclusion is, at best, specious.
Focusing on “necessity and materiality” versus “materiality” is a distinction without a difference; if evidence is not necessary, it is not material. Indeed, tellingly and ironically, the majority advocates the express adoption of a definition of “material witness” found in Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004): “a material witness is ‘(a) witness who can testify about matters having some logical connection with the consequential facts, esp. if few others, if any, know about these matters’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, by the majority’s endorsed definition a “material witness” in this context is a witness that is “necessary” to the prosecution. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that a showing of “necessity and materiality” is different and a greater burden than that of solely “materiality,” it defies logic and flies in the face of judicial economy that the General Assembly intended that the threshold showing, i.e., that before the Georgia court, be lesser than that before the court in the foreign jurisdiction. To find otherwise permits a petitioner to utilize the judicial time and resources of two jurisdictions when the petitioner cannot initially prevail, and allows “necessity” to be decided solely by a court other *407than the one faced with the trial of the case. As reasonably read by the Court of Appeals, OCGA § 24-10-94 (a) requires that the petitioner make a showing before the Georgia court of “necessity and materiality” in regard to the sought out-of-state witness. And, in this case, Davenport failed to demonstrate that her sought witness was either necessary or material to her criminal prosecution.
Certainly, under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section I, Paragraph XIV of the 1983 Georgia Constitution, a Georgia defendant facing criminal charges has the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses to be used in mounting a defense to the charges. And without question, the Act provides a process for obtaining a court order for the production of the out-of-state witness. However, it does not provide an absolute right to the presence of the out-of-state witness; the petitioner has the burden of presenting sufficient facts to enable the courts in both the demanding and receiving states to determine whether the witness should be compelled to travel to the foreign jurisdiction. Thus, as a matter of law and practicality, such determinations must be made at the trial level on a case-by-case basis and upon the evidence presented to the trial court. And, it follows that the decision whether to grant the process must be within the sound discretion of the trial court. Not only does this standard comport with the required evidentiary showing, but it reflects the plain statutory language of OCGA § 24-10-94 (a), which provides that the trial court may issue the sought certificate. In such a context, “may” is unquestionably a term of permissiveness, which authorizes the trial court to act in its discretion in determining whether to grant the certificate. McCorquodale v. State, 233 Ga. 369, 374 (3) (211 SE2d 577) (1974); see also Campbell v. Dept. of Corrections, 268 Ga. 408, 411 (2) (490 SE2d 99) (1997); Mohammed v. State, 226 Ga. App. 387, 388 (486 SE2d 652) (1997). There is no mandate that the trial court do so.
Davenport’s evidentiary showing fell short of requiring the finding that any adjustments made in the 1-5000 source code for asthma sufferers were material to her criminal prosecution. As outlined by the Court of Appeals, there was evidence that Davenport had not recently been treated for asthma; she did not recall the results of medical tests taken years before to measure her “vital capacity”; she claimed her asthma generally flared up following exercise or her being upset and that she became upset after she was arrested and handcuffed and realized that she was going to jail; she was upset and crying when she took the breath test, but any symptoms of respiratory distress by then had lessened; and that she had not used a prescribed inhaler on the date that she was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and administered the *408breath-alcohol test on the 1-5000. Davenport did not show that any breathing difficulties or lung capacity issues that she might have experienced before being administered the breath test on the 1-5000 were related to any asthmatic or other chronic or diagnosed respiratory condition. In sum, she offered no concrete evidence, medical or otherwise, about the impact of her alleged asthma on her breathing capacity or about the status of her condition at the relevant time, that is, at the time of her breath testing. In addition, a review of the expert testimony she cites in relation to her own version of events compels the conclusion that, at best, the expert testimony is speculative.
Also, there is no merit to Davenport’s assertion that the trial court’s ruling denies her constitutional rights to compulsory process, confrontation, due process of law, and a fair trial. The contention is based upon the premise that the 1-5000 is Davenport’s accuser, invoking the constitutional right of confrontation. However, as noted by the State, the 1-5000 is simply a tool used by law enforcement to determine the breath-alcohol content of a driver who is suspected of driving under the influence. Davenport was adjudged guilty by the trial court on the basis of evidence, to which Davenport stipulated, some of which was reported by the 1-5000 after it was certified to be fully operational. In the context of a challenge to the admission into evidence of an inspection certificate for the Intoxilyzer, this Court has determined that there is no violation of the right of confrontation. Rackoff v. State, 281 Ga. 306, 309 (2) (637 SE2d 706) (2006); Brown v. State, 268 Ga. 76, 80 (485 SE2d 486) (1997); see also Jacobson v. State, 306 Ga. App. 815, 818 (4) (703 SE2d 376) (2010). This is so, in part, because an inspection certificate, like a computer source code, is not testimonial in nature; it is part of the regular course of business regarding operation of the 1-5000, and it is not utilized in an investigatory or adversarial setting or generated in anticipation of the prosecution of a particular defendant. Rackoff v. State, supra at 309 (2).
In sum, the majority splits semantic hairs in order to undermine long-standing precedent which logically and reasonably construes OCGA § 24-10-94 (a), effectuates the legislative intent, and comports with the practical application of the Act. Unfortunately, the facts of this case well demonstrate the fallacy of the majority’s holding. Both the Court of Appeals and the trial court have already rightly assessed the failure of this criminal defendant’s evidence under the correct standard. Nonetheless, each will be forced to parse such evidence for mere “materiality,” which neither will find in the absence of “necessity.” Permitting Davenport to yet again present her meritless argument to multiple tribunals, in what has become the latest round in the DUI defendants’ arsenal to attempt to discredit the alcohol-*409breath-testing machine, the Intoxilyzer 5000, is a blatant misuse of judicial resources.
Decided June 20, 2011.
Head, Thomas, Webb & Willis, William C. Head, for appellant.
Barry E. Morgan, Solicitor-General, Joseph W Hudson, Assistant Solicitor-General, for appellee.
Charles C. Olson, Tasha M. Mosley, amici curiae.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals should stand.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Carley joins in this dissent.