Opinion ID: 2352281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: blood alcohol evidence.

Text: Dr. Mary Fran Mallory testified from a toxicology report that Appellant's blood alcohol (B.A.) level at 3:50 a.m. was 0.141 (Beckwith's B.A. level was 0.076 and Linker's was 0.223). The prosecutor asked Dr. Mallory to perform a retrograde extrapolation to estimate Appellant's B.A. level as of 1:25 a.m., assuming a history of alcohol abuse. The trial court sustained defense counsel's objection, but permitted the prosecutor to rephrase the question and ask the doctor to assume, hypothetically, someone with a history of alcohol abuse. Dr. Mallory's opinion was that such a person's B.A. level would have been 0.21 as of 1:25 a.m. Although several eyewitnesses testified that Appellant appeared intoxicated while inside the R Place Pub on the night in question, there was no evidence that he had a history of alcohol abuse. It is a fundamental rule of evidence that a hypothetical question must be based upon, or contain, a state of facts supported by some evidence. Hodge v. Commonwealth, 289 Ky. 548, 159 S.W.2d 422, 423 (1942). Professor Lawson reports that our pre-Rules case law imposed three requirements on the use of hypothetical questions: (1) the assumptions used in a hypothetical question were required to reflect the true state of the facts in evidence; (2) competent evidence was required to be introduced to support each and every assumption used in such a question; and (3) although the supporting evidence did not have to be uncontradicted, it had to be sufficient to support findings by the jury on every assumption essential to the validity of the opinion. Robert G. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook § 6.25[3], at 465 (4th ed. LexisNexis 2003) (internal citations omitted). He also opines that all of the requirements described above are sound enough to have survived the adoption of KRE 702. Id. We agree; thus, the objection to Dr. Mallory's opinion should have been sustained. We also agree with Appellant that since the unsubstantiated hypothetical fact could not be used to support Dr. Mallory's retrograde extrapolation, it served no purpose other than to insinuate that Appellant was a person of bad character in contravention of KRE 404(a)(1). The prosecutor should not have been permitted to ask the hypothetical question and Dr. Mallory should not have been permitted to respond to it.