Opinion ID: 1277506
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admissibility of HGN test results in this case

Text: {33} Because we conclude that HGN testing involves scientific knowledge, we hold that the HGN evidence in this case must satisfy the requirements of Alberico-Daubert. In short, `under the Rules [of Evidence] the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.' Anderson, 118 N.M. at 291, 881 P.2d at 36 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786). {34} Although [t]he inquiry envisioned... is ... a flexible one, Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594, 113 S.Ct. 2786, determining the evidentiary reliability of scientific knowledge does require trial courts to consider several factors, see Stills, 1998-NMSC-009, ¶ 27, 125 N.M. 66, 957 P.2d 51; cf. Anderson, 118 N.M. at 291, 881 P.2d at 36 (listing factors). Further, the overarching subject [of the inquiry] is the scientific validityand thus the evidentiary relevance and reliabilityof the principles that underlie a proposed submission. The focus ... must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-95, 113 S.Ct. 2786; accord Alberico, 116 N.M. at 168, 861 P.2d at 204. {35} Our review of the record indicates that the trial court did not consider any of the required factors for assessing the evidentiary reliability of HGN testing in this case, nor was there an appropriate focus on principles and methodology. Rather, the trial court simply overruled Torres's objection that the State had failed to establish the evidentiary reliability of Officer Bowdich's HGN testimony, and no application of the Alberico-Daubert standard ensued. Because the trial court allowed the State to continue its questioning of Officer Bowdich concerning the HGN test without a proper inquiry into the evidentiary reliability of this test, we must presume that the trial court viewed the Alberico-Daubert standard as inapposite under the facts of this case. This view is premised on a misapprehension of the law, and we hold that the trial court's decision to admit the HGN testimony without applying the Alberico-Daubert standard is reversible error in this case. {36} The State proposes three arguments to the contrary, but we remain unconvinced. First, the State relies on State ex rel. Hamilton v. City Court, 165 Ariz. 514, 799 P.2d 855, 858 (1990) (en banc), for the proposition that the proper foundation for HGN evidence is limited to describing the officer's education and experience in administering the test and showing that proper procedures were followed. This argument is unpersuasive. Unlike New Mexico, the Arizona courts have rejected Daubert in favor of the general acceptance standard articulated in Frye, 293 F. at 1014. See State v. Tankersley, 191 Ariz. 359, 956 P.2d 486, 491 (1998). Given that HGN testimony had been ruled admissible in Arizona courts four years prior to City Court, see State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 718 P.2d 171, 181 (1986) (en banc) we do not find it surprising that the prosecution met the general acceptance standard in that case without any additional testimony regarding the scientific principles upon which the HGN test is based. Further, we note that part of the reason the Arizona courts may regard such additional testimony as unnecessary is that they only admit HGN evidence for limited purposes such as establishing probable cause and corroborating the results of more reliable sobriety tests such as chemical analyses of breath, blood, or urine. See Superior Court, 718 P.2d at 181-82. Thus, it is not clear that the HGN evidence in this case would be admissible under the Arizona standard, because the State was not using this evidence merely to corroborate a chemical analysis of Torres's blood alcohol content. Indeed, the State offered no such analysis in this case. {37} Although the State presented evidence at trial as to Officer Bowdich's training and experience with HGN testing, we conclude that his training and experience are not sufficiently probative of the test's evidentiary reliability. We note that some courts have allowed the admission of HGN testimony for limited purposes without a scientific expert laying an appropriate foundation under the relevant admissibility standard. See, e.g., Whitson v. State, 314 Ark. 458, 863 S.W.2d 794, 798 (1993) (holding that admission of HGN evidence for the limited purpose of showing unquantified level of alcohol consumption did not require a preliminary inquiry regarding novel scientific knowledge); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157-58 (Iowa 1990) (holding that HGN testing is not unlike any other lay, field-sobriety test and that it therefore requires no admissibility foundation for scientific evidence); City of Fargo v. McLaughlin, 512 N.W.2d 700, 708 (N.D.1994) (We agree with those cases holding that the only foundation required [for HGN testing] is a showing of the officer's training and experience in administering the test, and a showing that the test was in fact properly administered.); State v. Bresson, 51 Ohio St.3d 123, 554 N.E.2d 1330, 1336 (1990) (holding that HGN evidence is as admissible as would be other field sobriety tests). Nevertheless, we find persuasive the reasoning of other courts which have held that if police officers are not qualified to testify about the scientific bases underlying the HGN test, they are not competent to establish that the test satisfies the relevant admissibility standard. See, e.g., People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 882 P.2d 321, 334 (1994) (in bank); Merritt, 647 A.2d at 1026-28; People v. Vega, 145 Ill. App.3d 996, 99 Ill.Dec. 808, 496 N.E.2d 501, 504-05 (1986); State v. Witte, 251 Kan. 313, 836 P.2d 1110, 1116 (1992); State v. Borchardt, 224 Neb. 47, 395 N.W.2d 551, 559 (1986); cf. Barrett v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 95 F.3d 375, 382 (5th Cir.1996) (holding that an animal behaviorist was not qualified to testify about the cause of observed chromosomal changes to rats due to their exposure to chemicals, or about the possible effects of similar exposure on humans, because such testimony was beyond his expertise); 4 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence, § 702.06[1], at 702-44 to -45 (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed. 1998) (The trial court should exclude proffered expert testimony if the subject of the testimony lies outside the witness's area of expertise.). {38} As its second argument in support of its contention that the trial court did not err in admitting the HGN evidence, the State cites case law from other jurisdictions for the proposition that HGN testing is generally accepted in the scientific community. See, e.g., Superior Court, 718 P.2d at 180-81, app. A, at 182, app. B, at 182-84 (concluding that HGN testing is generally accepted in the scientific community, and listing scholarly sources in support of this conclusion); People v. Joehnk, 35 Cal. App.4th 1488, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 6, 9-17 (1995) (concluding, upon a review of the expert testimony introduced at trial as well as a review of the case law of California and other jurisdictions, that HGN testing is generally accepted in the scientific community as a useful tool when combined with other tests and observations); Schultz v. State, 106 Md.App. 145, 664 A.2d 60, 70-74 (1995) (taking judicial notice of the scientific validity of HGN testing based on reported case law and scientific literature). However, in Alberico, we concluded that [i]t is improper to look for scientific acceptance only from reported case law. 116 N.M. at 167, 861 P.2d at 203. We reaffirm that conclusion today. {39} The thrust of the policy behind Alberico, Anderson, and Stills is to broaden the trial court's role in admitting evidence of scientific knowledge. Specifically, Alberico and its progeny allow a trial court to admit evidence of scientific knowledge that is adequately valid (from a scientific viewpoint) to be sufficiently reliable (from an evidentiary viewpoint). To facilitate this intent, Alberico rejected the principle that general acceptance within a particular scientific discipline was a necessary or sufficient condition for evidentiary admissibility. See Alberico, 116 N.M. at 167, 861 P.2d at 203. {40} At this point, we do not decide whether HGN testing is adequately valid from a scientific point of view based on reported case law or other authorities. Cf. Vega, 99 Ill.Dec. 808, 496 N.E.2d at 504-05 (refusing to accept evidence regarding the scientific validity of HGN testing for the first time on appeal). Our holding is limited to whether the State provided sufficient support at trial for a threshold determination that the underlying scientific technique is based upon well-recognized scientific principle and... is capable of supporting opinions based upon reasonable probability rather than conjecture. Alberico, 116 N.M. at 167, 861 P.2d at 203. We hold that the State did not satisfy its Alberico-Daubert burden. Although Officer Bowdich testified that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accepted HGN testing, that the test was nationally certified, and that the test was routinely given, his testimony was insufficient to establish the evidentiary reliability required by Alberico-Daubert. Officer Bowdich was not qualified to testify about the scientific bases of HGN testing, and although his testimony lent support for a conclusion that the test was widely usedthus giving rise to an inference of general acceptancehis testimony did not explain how the test proved intoxication. He therefore did not assist the trier of fact in understanding the scientific validity of the test. In addition, although his testimony supported an inference that various authorities believe HGN testing to be scientifically valid, his testimony did not provide the trier of fact with a ground on which to evaluate the basis of that belief. {41} In its final argument, the State asserts that, [i]f this Court desires, judicial notice may be taken of the limited fact that HGN is a scientific test used to determine whether someone is under the influence. We conclude at this point that HGN testing does not meet the criteria we have previously established for the proper taking of judicial notice: This court, since early territorial days, has expressed the view that courts will take judicial notice of matters of common and general knowledge. The matter of which a court will take judicial notice must be a subject of common and general knowledge. The matter must be known, that is well established and authoritatively settled. Thus, uncertainty of the matter or fact in question will operate to preclude judicial notice thereof. Rozelle v. Barnard, 72 N.M. 182, 183, 382 P.2d 180, 181 (1963) (citations omitted); accord Holton v. Janes, 25 N.M. 374, 379, 183 P. 395, 397 (1919); see also Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Beevers, 84 N.M. 159, 162-63, 500 P.2d 444, 447-48 (Ct.App.1972) (refusing to take judicial notice of a general law of nature concerning the combustibility of gases where there was no showing as to how this law was affected by variables). {42} We are not persuaded that HGN testing is a subject of common and general knowledge, or a matter well established and authoritatively settled in New Mexico. We therefore determine that judicial notice of the evidentiary reliability of HGN testing would be inappropriate at this time. Specifically, we hold that because the State failed to establish the evidentiary reliability of HGN testing, the HGN testimony should not have been admitted at trial.