Opinion ID: 1267651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: witness green

Text: Priester next contends that technologist Green, was not qualified as an expert to testify that a person with a blood-alcohol reading in excess of .100 milligrams per deciliter is considered intoxicated. We agree. In State v. Carrigan , 184 S.C. 610, 328 S.E. (2d) 119 (Ct. App. 1985), the Court of Appeals held that blood test results should be accompanied by appropriate expert testimony interpreting them, since the presumptions provided by subsection (b) [the Implied Consent Law [1] for breathalyzers] would not apply. The issue of what constitutes appropriate expert testimony interpreting blood test results has not been addressed by this Court. However, in Tarrock v. City of Kingston , 279 A.D. 693, 108 N.Y.S. (2d) 16 (1951), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that testimony of a hemotologist as to a recognized standard by which intoxication is presumed from a blood-alcohol test was properly excluded. As the hemotologist was not a physician or otherwise qualified from personal experience, he was incompetent to testify regarding the effect of the alcohol on Tarrock. Similarly, in Groth v. DeGrandchamp , 71 Mich. App. 439, 248 N W. (2d) 576 (1976), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that, although a witness for the State was properly qualified to conduct blood tests and determine their results, she lacked the qualification necessary to permit her to testify as an expert on the effect of a given blood alcohol content on an individual... 248 N.W. (2d) at 579. We agree with the holdings in Tarrock and Groth . Here, although competent to conduct tests determining blood-alcohol content , Green admitted that he had no training whatsoever in determining the effect of alcohol upon the human system. Accordingly, Green's testimony on the issue of intoxication was inadmissible. Reversed and remanded.