This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was involved in an automobile accident at approximately 5:45 a.m., resulting in charges of homicide by motor vehicle, three counts of great bodily harm by motor vehicle, and aggravated DWI. At the scene, the Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol but claimed to have stopped drinking at midnight. Field sobriety tests were administered, which the Defendant passed, but he later complained of pain and was transported to a hospital. Blood samples were taken six hours and twenty minutes after the accident, showing a BAC of 0.02 (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of McKinley County: Denied the State's motion in limine to admit expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation, reasoning that such testimony was inadmissible under existing case law when the BAC was below the statutory limit, the blood sample was taken more than two hours after driving, and there was no behavioral evidence of intoxication (paras 1, 10).
Parties' Submissions
- State (Appellant): Argued that the trial court misinterpreted case law by excluding expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation and that the BAC nexus cases do not establish a bright-line rule against such evidence. The State also contended that the trial court erred in refusing to recall the expert witness, excluding the BAC report, and failing to make a pretrial ruling on impairment evidence (paras 11, 13, 20, 24-27).
- Defendant (Appellee): Asserted that the trial court correctly excluded the expert testimony as unreliable under the principles established in State v. Alberico and the BAC nexus cases. The Defendant also argued that the State failed to preserve its arguments for appeal (paras 12, 16).
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation based on its interpretation of the BAC nexus cases.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to recall the expert witness for additional testimony.
- Whether the trial court erred in excluding the BAC report.
- Whether the trial court erred in failing to make a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of impairment evidence.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's exclusion of expert retrograde extrapolation testimony and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 28).
Reasons
Per Fry J. (Pickard and Robinson JJ. concurring):
The trial court misinterpreted the BAC nexus cases, which do not establish a strict time limit for the admissibility of retrograde extrapolation evidence or require a minimum BAC level for such evidence to be considered. Instead, the cases emphasize the need for corroborative evidence to establish a nexus between the BAC at the time of testing and the time of driving. Retrograde extrapolation, if deemed reliable under Rule 11-702 and State v. Alberico, can serve as such corroborative evidence, even with a significant delay between driving and testing (paras 13-23).
The trial court also erred in concluding it lacked authority to recall the expert witness during the motion hearing. The decision to recall a witness is within the trial court's discretion and is not precluded by procedural rules (para 26).
Additionally, the trial court mistakenly required the State to admit the BAC report as a prerequisite for ruling on the admissibility of the expert's testimony. An offer of proof would have sufficed for the purposes of the motion in limine (para 27).
The Court clarified that on remand, the trial court may consider the admissibility of the expert's testimony under Rule 11-702 and Alberico, as well as the other issues raised by the State, including the admissibility of impairment evidence and the BAC report (paras 23-27).