 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Members in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Machmuller6/27/2001
his analysis would rest on a reliable foundation supported by scientifically valid principles. Daubert requires nothing more. See Hofer, supra.
[ .] Reversed and remanded.
[ .] AMUNDSON, KONENKAMP and GILBERTSON, Justices, concur.
[ .] SABERS, Justice, concurs in result.
SABERS, Justice (concurring in result).
[ .] I agree with the result on both issues but disagree with the majority opinion's treatment of issue 1 as dependent on issue 2. Both the manual and the expert should have been admitted in their own right.
[ .] The majority opinion recognizes that the manual was self-authenticating and admissible if proven relevant. That relevancy, however, is then linked to the treatment of issue 2 concerning the admissibility of Machmuller's expert: "It follows that, if the doctor's opinion was not otherwise admissible, the manual had no further relevance in the case." This statement is confusing and in error. What could be more relevant than the blood alcohol content of Machmuller? Even if the trier of fact chose to disregard Machmuller's account of the amount of alcohol consumed or his level of intoxication, Machmuller was clearly entitled to assert his defense.
[ .] Though the manual would not be decisive, it enabled the defendant to properly argue his version of the facts. The record demonstrates that the manual served a purpose beyond the expert testimony. Defense counsel first attempted to introduce the manual during cross-examination of the arresting officer, who was perhaps the most damaging witness against Machmuller. The trial court sustained the State's objection finding the manual was without authentication and not relevant. Admittedly, this reasoning was error. As the manual and the extrapolation of blood alcohol content were relevant at all times in determining whether the defendant was driving under the influence , it was admissible in its own right. The manual could then be properly used by the defense expert and in challenging the State's witness.
[ .] By attempting to limit the relevancy of this manual to the admissibility of the expert, the majority opinion is doing exactly what it faults the trial court for doing, requiring a foundation for this self-authenticating document. This reasoning defies logic and the law.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Dakota Members
Members
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Members in your area.
|
|