Opinion ID: 1838104
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Defendant's remaining assignment will be entertained since the issue thereby raised may arise again on retrial.

Text: As heretofore revealed this asserted error focuses upon defendant's unsuccessful effort to present opinion evidence of a claimed expert. After Martin had testified at length regarding his ingestion of narcotics over a period of about 15 years, and particularly on the day of the robbery here charged, Harry Woods was called as a defense witness. Mr. Woods was then the Polk County Court Services drug specialist. This witness testimonially stated he (1) had a year of training in drug counseling at Still College; (2) served as an instructor for about three months; (3) was the narcotics specialist at Model City's Neighborhood Corrections Agency; and (4) had worked with approximately 300 drug users. Upon that foundational showing defense counsel attempted to elicit testimony from Woods regarding the effect certain drugs had on people, and the characteristics of addicts. State's objections to most of these questions were sustained on the ground Woods lacked requisite expertise. Defendant's attorney next asked a series of hypothetical questions designed to reveal whether a person with Martin's history, having assertedly ingested drugs on the robbery date, was under the influence of same at time of the crime; was a constant user; had then voluntarily or involuntarily used drugs; and knew of the offense related events. State's objections thereto based on lack of proper foundation were sustained. In each instance trial court observed the witness had not been shown competent or qualified to answer the questions. Defendant made no offer of proof. As stated in Hedges v. Conder, 166 N. W.2d 844, 857 (Iowa 1969): Expert testimony is not admissible unless the witness is shown to be qualified and the facts upon which he bases his opinion are sufficient to enable a witness so qualified to express an opinion which is more than a mere conjecture. Hardwick v. Bublitz, 254 Iowa 1253, 1259, 119 N.W.2d 886, 889. `To warrant the use of expert testimony,    two elements are required. First, the subject of the inference must be so distinctly related to some science, profession, business or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layman, and second, the witness must have such skill, knowledge or experience in that field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth.   .' See also Ganrud v. Smith, 206 N.W.2d 311, 314-315 (Iowa 1973). It is obvious the questions asked of Woods stood in the specialized field of medico-sociological science. And anyone called upon to testify as an expert in that area must be shown to possess requisite attendant expertise. See 19 Drake L.Rev. 245, 271 (1970). Although Woods may have qualified to testify regarding drug counseling, the exclusion of his testimony as to the effect of drugs on the human body and mind was not an abuse of discretion by trial court. See Ganrud v. Smith, supra . Further discussion on this subject will serve no useful purpose. Defendant's assignment of error, last above mentioned, is without merit. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. MASON, REES, REYNOLDSON and McCORMICK, JJ., concur. MOORE, C. J., and UHLENHOPP, LeGRAND and HARRIS, JJ., dissent.