Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448As used in this article, the term:
(Code 1981, §24-13-91, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 2/HB 24.)
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-91 are included in the annotations for this Code section.
- Because the only testimony in a hearing on a motion for a new trial with regard to defendant's murder conviction regarding the content of defendant's sister's potential testimony showed that it would have merely reiterated defendant's mother's testimony, the trial court did not err by failing to secure the attendance of the sister through an interstate subpoena. Tollette v. State, 280 Ga. 100, 621 S.E.2d 742 (2005) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-91).
- It was the out-of-state judge who must decide whether the sought-after witness was necessary and material, not the requesting court in Georgia. The Georgia trial judge presented with a request for a certificate was charged with deciding whether the sought-after witness was a "material witness," under the former Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State in Criminal Proceedings, former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-94(a) (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-13-94); in light of the former Uniform Act, former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-97 (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-13-97), "material witness" was construed as a witness who could testify about matters having some logical connection with the consequential facts, especially if few others, if any, knew about these matters. Davenport v. State, 289 Ga. 399, 711 S.E.2d 699 (2011) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-91).
- 81 Am. Jur. 2d, Witnesses, §§ 50, 51.
- 98 C.J.S. (Rev), Witnesses, § 1.
No results found for Georgia Code 24-13-91.