 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Gordon4/15/2002
l and prompt review of a decision to suspend a driver's license." State v. Cassady, 140 N.H. 46, 49 (1995). Therefore, the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion in limine.
Finally, the defendant argues that the expert evidence presented by the State on the issue of his intoxication was unreliable, inadmissible and highly prejudicial. Specifically, he challenges the admissibility of the State's evidence of his blood alcohol level at the time of the accident and his likely impairment at that level. We reiterate the requirement of a contemporaneous objection to preserve an issue for appellate review. See State v. Sullivan, 142 N.H. 399, 403 (1997). Although the defendant objected to the first hypothetical posed to Dr. Novak by the State, he never challenged the line of questioning that followed, which required Dr. Novak to determine what the defendant's blood alcohol content was at 8:30 p.m. Therefore, the defendant has failed to preserve this issue for appeal.
Affirmed.
BRODERICK, J., sat for oral argument but did not take part in the final vote; BROCK, C.J., and NADEAU and DALIANIS, JJ., concurred.
|