This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Two defendants were arrested on separate occasions for driving under the influence of drugs. Both tested negative for blood alcohol content but exhibited signs of impairment. Drug Recognition Evaluators (DREs) applied a 12-Step Protocol to assess impairment and identify the category of drugs involved. In one case, cannabis was confirmed by a blood test, while in the other, cocaine was confirmed, but not heroin (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: Denied the defendants' motions to exclude the testimony of the DREs, finding the testimony admissible under the Daubert standard (headnotes, para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendants: Argued that the DREs' testimony lacked a sufficient scientific foundation under Daubert and that the DREs were not qualified as scientific experts. One defendant also claimed that the DRE improperly performed the Protocol, undermining its reliability (paras 3, 5, 32).
- State: Contended that the Protocol was not entirely scientific and that the DREs' testimony was based on specialized knowledge. Alternatively, the State argued that even if the Protocol were scientific, it met the Daubert standard. The State also maintained that minor deviations in the Protocol's administration did not affect its admissibility (paras 1, 5, 32).
Legal Issues
- Was the DRE 12-Step Protocol scientific in nature, and did it require a Daubert analysis?
- Did the State establish a sufficient scientific foundation for the Protocol and its individual steps?
- Were the DREs qualified to testify as expert witnesses regarding the Protocol?
- Did minor deviations in the administration of the Protocol render the evidence inadmissible?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to admit the DREs' testimony and upheld the defendants' convictions (para 34).
Reasons
Per Robinson J. (Pickard and Castillo JJ. concurring):
Scientific Nature of the Protocol: The Court held that the Protocol as a whole was not scientific because many of its steps were based on observation rather than scientific principles. However, certain individual steps, such as the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, were deemed scientific and required a proper foundation (paras 6-10).
Daubert Analysis: Even if the Protocol were considered scientific, the Court found that the State satisfied the Daubert factors. The Protocol was testable, had been subjected to peer review, had a low error rate, and was generally accepted in the field of forensic toxicology. The Court emphasized that disputes over the Protocol's accuracy went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility (paras 21-30).
Expert Qualification: The DREs were qualified to testify based on their specialized training and experience. Their testimony was deemed helpful to the trier of fact, as it provided insight into the correlation between observed symptoms and drug impairment. The Court distinguished between scientific and specialized knowledge, finding the DREs' testimony fell into the latter category (paras 17-19).
Protocol Administration: Minor deviations in the administration of the Protocol, such as failing to record a temperature or a third pulse rate, did not undermine its validity. The Court noted that the toxicology results corroborated the DREs' conclusions, and any deficiencies could be addressed through cross-examination (paras 32-33).
Conclusion: The Court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the DREs' testimony was admissible and that the Protocol met the reliability and validity standards under Daubert (para 34).