O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
This article shall be known and may be cited as “The Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State.”
History
Code 1981, § 24-13-90, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.
Annotations
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 Ga. App. LEXIS 1181 (2007) (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 Uni-
form 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 Ga. App. LEXIS 607 (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 Ga. LEXIS 133 (2015).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 25B Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Witnesses, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2013–2022 · leading case:
Parker v. State, 769 S.E.2d 329 (Ga. 2015).
Parker v. State, 769 S.E.2d 329 (Ga. 2015).
· cites it 2× “We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether, under Georgia’s new Evidence Code, hearsay evidence is admissible in determining whether an out-of-state person is a material witness to a Georgia criminal proceeding under our State’s Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of…”
Young v. State, 749 S.E.2d 423 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Because “process issued by Georgia courts does not have extraterritorial power,” Georgia, like the 49 other states, enacted the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State (the “Uniform Act”), OCGA § 24-13-90 et seq. 4 (Citation omitted.”
Collins v. State, 760 S.E.2d 606 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “*591 During her criminal case, in an attempt to secure production of the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code 1 from the machine’s manufacturer in Kentucky, Collins filed a motion seeking a determination of materiality, relevance, and necessity of the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code under…”
Cronkite v. State, 745 S.E.2d 591 (Ga. 2013).
· cites it 2× “…Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State from former OCGA §§ 24-10-90 - 24-10-97 to current OCGA §§ 24-13-90 - 24-13-97. The provisions of former OCGA § 24-10-94 can now be found in our new Evidence Code under OCGA § 24-13-94. The references to the…”
Parker v. State, 756 S.E.2d 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “08 percent, and moved for a certificate of materiality under the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State, OCGA § 24-13-90 et seq. Parker sought to obtain from an out-of-state witness testimony regarding the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000, 1…”
Aburto v. State, 759 S.E.2d 276 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “The provisions of former OCGA § 24-10-90 through OCGA § 24-10-97 are found at OCGA § 24-13-90 through OCGA § 24-13-97. See Young v.”
Davenport v. State, 763 S.E.2d 130 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “We note that at all relevant times here this Act was codified at OCGA §§ 24-10-90 to 24-10-97, but effective January 2013, those provisions are now contained in OCGA §§ 24-13-90 to 24-13-97. Davenport’s motion for reconsideration did not extend the time for filing her notice of…”
Camela Noelle Collins v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “During her criminal case, in an attempt to secure production of the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code1 from the machine’s manufacturer in Kentucky, Collins filed a motion seeking a determination of materiality, relevance, and necessity of the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code under the…”
Eduardo Bowman v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× ““Because process issued by Georgia courts does not have extraterritorial power, Georgia, like the 49 other states, enacted the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State (the “Uniform Act”), OCGA § 24-13-90 et seq.” See Young v. State, 324 Ga.”
Lakeisha Griffith v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “LaKeisha Griffith filed a direct appeal of the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress bank records she contends were obtained in violation of the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State, OCGA § 24-13-90 et seq. (the “Act”) However,…”
Holowiak v. the State, 774 S.E.2d 229 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “The new Evidence Code moved the provisions of the Uniform Act to OCGA §§ 24-13-90 — 24-13-97. As Holowiak’s motion for a material witness certificate was filed before the new Evidence Code was effective, we cite to the former Code provisions here.”
Parker v. State (Ga. 2015).
· cites it 2× “We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether, under Georgia’s new Evidence Code, hearsay evidence is admissible in determining whether an out- of-state person is a material witness to a Georgia criminal proceeding under our State’s Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.