Jason Brent Parker was charged with speeding and driving under the influence with a blood-alcohol level greater than 0.08 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 the device that was used to test his blood-alcohol content. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Parker’s evidence was hearsay and that he failed to prove that the witness whose attendance he sought to compel was material. Parker waived his right to a jury trial and the parties submitted stipulated facts to the trial court, which found Parker guilty as charged. Parker appeals his conviction, asserting that the trial court erred in denying his request for a certificate of materiality seeking the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Parker enumerates five errors, all relating to the trial court’s denial of his request for a certificate of materiality. He argues that the trial court 1 erred in excluding as hearsay the evidence he proffered at the motion hearing; 2 erred in holding that his evidence failed to show a logical connection to facts indicating an error in the test results; and 3 violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process, compulsory process, and a fair trial. Parker also asserts 4 that federal courts have held that defendants are entitled to access to the source code of computer software to determine its reliability; and 5 that because the source code is relevant and the State has it in its possession, custody, or control, the State is required to disclose it under the discovery provisions of OCGA § 17-16-1 and 40-6-392 a 4. In response to Parker’s first four enumerations, the State argues that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion, and contends that no facts in the record support Parker’s last enumeration.
