Opinion ID: 522306
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Harvey's rebuttal toxicologist

Text: 43 Harvey next asserts the trial court abused its discretion in refusing the testimony of his rebuttal toxicologist, Dr. Verdeal. Harvey claims that Dr. Wingeleth, an unnoticed expert for G.M., testified that Schade was substantially impaired by marijuana, and that the court should have permitted Harvey to call Dr. Verdeal to rebut Dr. Wingeleth's gas chromatograph readouts. GM asserts that Dr. Verdeal was not a proper rebuttal witness because the evidence of Schade's drug use was no surprise to Harvey. GM states that in the pretrial memorandum and at pretrial conference, GM disclosed its intention to use the evidence. GM notes that although Harvey's general counsel announced in opening statement: They [GM] will even try to show he [Schade] had been using marijuana. And we will disprove that totally, Harvey did not endorse Dr. Verdeal as an expert witness, did not list her as a trial witness, and did not offer her for a pretrial deposition. 44 In refusing to permit Harvey to call Dr. Verdeal, the trial court observed: 45 The question is whether or not this is surprise. The issue is why didn't you endorse this person as an expert and give the substance of the testimony at the final pretrial conference when you knew of these issues that were going to arise. 46 .... 47 I can't believe that you were surprised by this. I think you knew exactly what Wingeleth was going to say even if you didn't depose him, you certainly knew the fate of the testimony. 48 .... 49 I think you should have endorsed this witness as an expert witness and I think that it comes as a surprise to the defendant and the defendant has had no opportunity to depose this witness. The rules, I don't think, bend that far. The objection to the offer of proof is sustained. 50 In our view, this issue arose due to Harvey's trial strategy. We perceive no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling.