Opinion ID: 1744176
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Detective Bowling's Testimony Regarding the Drug Trade was Admissible.

Text: Detective Bryant Bowling testified about the drug trade, including things like baggies being used to package drugs, the amount of cocaine in a typical hit, and his opinion regarding whether the amount of drugs seized from McCloud indicated an intent to traffic or for personal usage. McCloud argues Bowling's testimony included nothing that was beyond the ken of a lay person[,] meaning that [t]he trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the Commonwealth to present Bowling's opinion testimony. Our precedent is directly contrary to McCloud's argument. Bowling was unquestionably an experienced, qualified law enforcement officer. [24] We have approved the introduction of similar testimony both before [25] and after [26] the United States Supreme Court's landmark 1993 decision regarding expert testimony in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [27] And we have held that the type of testimony offered by Bowling was representative of the type of expert opinion based on `specialized knowledge' for which a formal Daubert hearing on reliability may be unnecessary.... [28] We believe our precedent remains a correct exposition of the law and, thus, hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted Bowling to render his opinions without first holding a formal Daubert hearing. [29]