 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Sun Prairie v. Rodenkirch1/30/2003
e v. Ripp, 2001 WI 113, , 246 Wis. 2d 67, 629 N.W.2d 698. "As with other discretionary determinations, this court will uphold a decision to admit or exclude evidence if the circuit court examined the relevant facts, applied a proper legal standard, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a reasonable conclusion." Id.
. The expert's opinion testimony was relevant. The City needed to show that Rodenkirch was driving while impaired by alcohol. The expert testified that "persons that have blood or breath alcohol concentrations exceeding .08 are unfit and unable to safely operate a motor vehicle." If true, the expert's opinion makes it more likely that Rodenkirch was impaired by alcohol.
. Rodenkirch points out that our state legislature has decided that a BAC greater than .10% is presumptive evidence of intoxication. Therefore, he contends the expert's testimony is impermissible because it "usurps the job of both the court to find facts and the legislature to make law." We disagree. Expert testimony such as that presented here neither prevents a fact finder from finding facts nor makes new law. A fact finder is free to accord such testimony great, little, or no weight. Furthermore, defendants are free to cross-examine such experts or present rebuttal experts.
. An analogous situation arose in Donner. In that drunk-driving case, an expert for the State was permitted to testify that "all persons are impaired to a varying degree at a BAC level of .09%." Donner, 192 Wis. 2d at 317. In Donner, this court found that this testimony was properly admitted. Id. at 319. Rodenkirch argues that the expert's testimony in the instant case is different because she generalized that all people with Rodenkirch's BAC level are unfit to drive, rather than leaving open the possibility that Rodenkirch was fit to drive. Rodenkirch points to the following language in Donner: "In addition, [the expert] acknowledged that the degree of impairment might vary with a person's drinking experience." Id. In effect, Rodenkirch complains that the expert in this case reached a conclusion that only the jury is permitted to reach: that Rodenkirch was impaired.
. We disagree with Rodenkirch's characterization of the evidence. The expert gave a general opinion encompassing all people, but did not give an opinion specific to Rodenkirch. More to the point, experts are routinely allowed to give opinions which, if believed, are dispositive on important factual issues in cases. For example, medical experts often give testimony that actions attributed to a defendant caused the death of another.
. Although we might question the credibility of the City's expert, that is not our role. Rodenkirch has not demonstrated that the expert's testimony was improperly admitted.
By the Court. -- Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|