In Yeary v. State , 302 Ga. App. 535 690 SE2d 901 2010, we affirmed Yeary’s conviction in a bench trial for driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 a 5. In Yeary v. State , 289 Ga. 394 711 SE2d 694 2011, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded the case to this Court “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court, and we consider the need for further proceedings. Yeary’s conviction was based in part on evidence that an Intoxilyzer 5000 machine showed that she was driving with an unlawful blood alcohol concentration of 0.179 grams. We addressed Yeary’s claim that the trial court erred by denying her pre-trial motion, filed pursuant to the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State OCGA § 24-10-90 et seq., to obtain the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000 from a corporation located in Kentucky. The trial court denied the motion on the basis that “the record does not support the conclusion that the source code Defendant seeks is material or relevant.” As stated by the Supreme Court, we affirmed the trial court for a different reason and held under the right for any reason rule that the Uniform Act could be used to obtain the presence and testimony of an out-of-state witness and evidence in the possession of the witness, but it could not be used to request only the production of evidence located in another state . . . that a request for documents and like things under the Act must be made ancillary to a request for testimony from an out-of-state witness . . . and that there is nothing in the record showing that Yeary identified or sought to obtain testimony from a witness who should be compelled to produce the evidence. Yeary , 289 Ga. at 394.
The Supreme Court recognized that, “while the Uniform Act speaks only to securing the attendance of an out-of-state witness, the scope of the statute has been construed in Georgia and several other states to authorize issuance of a summons that requires the out-of-state witness to bring items or documents with the witness.” Id. at 395. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that “the Uniform Act provides that a Georgia Judge may issue a certificate that ‘a person’ located outside Georgia is a ‘material witness’ in a pending Georgia prosecution OCGA § 24-10-94 a, and the Georgia court is also authorized to issue a certificate that the witness is in possession of evidence material to the pending prosecution.” Id. at 396. Considering how the Uniform Act applies to a corporation, the Supreme Court held that, “an out-of-state corporation may be ‘a person’ that is a material witness under the Uniform Act and may be determined to be in possession of material evidence.” Id. Furthermore, “since the corporation must act through human agents, the question then becomes whether the party requesting the certificate of witness-and-evidence materiality is required by the Uniform Act to identify the corporate agent through whom the out-of-state corporation will act in providing the purportedly material evidence, or whether the out-of-state corporation should designate its human agent.” Id. The Supreme Court answered that question as follows: We believe the more expedient course is to permit a party to request that a corporation, rather than its human agent, be found to be a material witness under the Uniform Act and leave the issue of designation of its human agent to the corporation. Said designation need not occur until after a certificate of materiality has been issued by the Georgia trial court and the court in the county in which the out-of-state corporation is located conducts a hearing which the corporation has been ordered to attend, on the request for issuance of a summons to appear at the Georgia trial with the material evidence purportedly in the corporation’s possession. See OCGA § 24-10-92 a. Id. at 396-397. According to the Supreme Court, this Court erred by ruling to the contrary and concluding “that a request under the Uniform Act that an out-of-state corporation be required to produce purportedly material evidence in its possession must be accompanied by the identification as a material witness of the corporate agent through which the corporation is to act.”1 Id. at 398.
