Opinion ID: 1846967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Evidence Relating to Cody and Fisher

Text: The Daubert/Schafersman hearing in this case was also applicable to several other pending cases. Because similar issues were pending in other cases on the county court's docket, the parties stipulated to a consolidated Daubert/Schafersman hearing. As a result, some evidence was accepted at the pretrial hearing for some cases, but not for others. Cody and Fisher were DRE instructors for, respectively, the city of Lincoln and the Nebraska State Patrol. Cody's testimony was offered by the State solely with respect to another case, not Daly's case. Nonetheless, the defense offered Cody's resume into evidence in all the consolidated cases including Daly's. And the defense argued that Cody's cross-examination testimony was relevant in Daly's case as well. Similarly, Fisher was called as a witness solely with respect to yet another case. The county court sustained the State's objections to Daly's proffered evidence. On appeal, Daly argues that the county court erred in permitting Cody and Fisher to testify as expert witnesses. But because neither witness' testimony was admitted in Daly's case, Daly was not aggrieved by the court's rulings and does not have standing to object to them on appeal. [57] Daly also argues that the court erred in sustaining the State's relevance objection to Cody's resume. Specifically, Cody's resume included his rolling log of DRE examinations. Daly argues that the rolling log was relevant, because it could be utilized in challenging any assertions of margin of error and/or reliability. [58] But Daly has not explained how it could be utilized to do that. And more to the point, the issue at the Daubert/Schafersman hearing was the general reliability of the DRE protocol as a basis for Hilger's testimony, not the specific proficiency of another officer who did not even examine Daly. The county court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's objection. Daly's final argument with respect to Cody's and Fisher's testimony is that the court erred in overruling his proffer of their cross-examination testimony. To begin with, it is not clear from the record that Fisher's testimony was offered. Daly's specific offer of proof referenced the docket number of the case in which Cody testified, not the case in which Fisher testified. But regardless, the county court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony as irrelevant. Daly repeats his assertion that the evidence could be utilized in challenging any assertions of margin of error, inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. [59] He does not explain how the evidence would support such a challenge, nor does he explain how such a challenge would be relevant to the issue presented in Daly's case at the Daubert/Schafersman hearing. In short, the county court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider any evidence relating to Cody or Fisher in Daly's case. Daly's arguments in that regard are without merit.