State v. Coffee2/12/2004
ness referred to, considered, or relied upon such publication in arriving at or forming the witness' opinion, or
(2) Such publication qualifies for admission into evidence under rule 803(b)(18).
FN10. HRE Rule 703 provides:
Rule 703 Bases of opinion testimony by experts. The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. The court may, however, disallow testimony in the form of an opinion or inference if the underlying facts or data indicate lack of trustworthiness.
FN11. HRE Rule 705 provides:
Rule 705 Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion. The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give the expert's reasons therefor without disclosing the underlying facts or data if the underlying facts or data have been disclosed in discovery proceedings. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.
During Coffee's trial, as the State attempted to qualify Officer Dowkin as an expert in drug recognition, the district court intervened and the following exchange occurred between the court and the deputy prosecuting attorney:
THE COURT: It's my understanding that State vs. Danny Wong was taken judicial notice of. In that case, I believe, the Court qualified Mr. Dowkin as an [sic] DRE expert, as an expert, so why are we going through this?
[Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (DPA) ]: Your Honor, well, if the defense is willing to--I guess, the defense, if they would be willing to stipulate to these exhibits. They were unwilling to do so. Ms. [C]offee was not a defendant in this case. If the defense is willing to stipulate to these exhibits and to the testimony and exhibits of State vs. Wong, then I could save the time of going through this.
THE COURT: Well didn't I take judicial notice of State vs. Danny Wong?
[DPA]: Yes, your Honor, for purposes of the motion in limine. If the Court---
THE COURT: It's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that in my decision, pending appeal of course, said witness stipulations inter alia, provide the following to be recited, in seriatim: Number one, the Wong case which is designated as the test case for the purpose of hearing movant's and movee's motions. Number two, in all other cases, including the cases captioned above, where movant, which is the Public Defender's Office, has filed motions, this Court may take judicial notice and incorporate into the record all said cases, all the motions, memoranda, transcripts, et cetera, in that case. This shall include all cases whether original jurisdiction is in Honolulu, Kaneohe, Ewa, Wahiawa, Waialua or Waianae Divisions, correct?
[DPA]: Yes, your Honor---
THE COURT: And this decision said: number one, the DRE program 12-step matrix was a valid test to ascertaining drug impairment; number two, that case further ruled Officer Dowkin was a qualified expert, is that correct?
[DPA]: Yes, your Honor.
**1008 *199 THE COURT: Why do you have to go through all this?
[DPA]: Your Honor, based upon the Court's colloquy, I would ask that Officer Dowkin be qualified as an expert witness in this case.
Following this discussion, the State's exhibits establishing Officer Dowkin's completion of his preliminary and classroom training, the Drug Recognition Evaluation Program, and his instructor training were admitted without objection by Coffee's counsel. Coffee's counsel did object to the admission of Officer Dowkin's drug recognition expert card b
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|