Opinion ID: 2376602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the court improperly exclude testimony concerning the olfactory ability of Mr. Carlin?

Text: Defendant argues that the court erred in sustaining an objection to defense counsel's cross-examination of one of the State's experts in which he sought to elicit an opinion concerning the deadening effect upon one's olfactory ability, of alcoholic consumption in a smoke laden tavern on a Friday night. The purpose of the line of cross-examination was to cast doubt upon Mr. Carlin's ability to detect smoke in the kitchen of his home when he returned after several hours in a tavern. The answer lies first, in the fact that there was no evidence of the smoke condition of the tavern  i.e., whether there was much, little or no smoke; second, in the fact that the expert claimed no knowledge or skill in this area; and third, in the absence of any proof concerning the effect of alcohol on the sense of smell. We find no merit to this argument.