Opinion ID: 2766861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Verizon Employee

Text: [¶25] Jeffrey argues that the Verizon employee’s explanation of the timing and “origination” columns on his cell phone billing record constituted expert testimony and not merely the testimony of a custodian of records. He asserts that because the State did not identify the Verizon employee as an expert pursuant to the court’s discovery order, the court erred in admitting the Verizon employee’s testimony about the contents of the records. [¶26] Whether proffered evidence requires expert explanation is a question left to the discretion of the trial court. Field & Murray, Maine Evidence § 702.1 at 374 (6th ed. 2007). We review the court’s decision to admit the Verizon employee’s explanation of the billing records for abuse of discretion or clear error of law. See State v. Nelson, 2010 ME 40, ¶ 9, 994 A.2d 808. [¶27] Testimony constitutes an expert opinion when it concerns “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” and “will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” M.R. Evid. 702. 14 A witness who testifies to the contents of cell phone billing records should be qualified as an expert if her testimony employs some form of specialized knowledge.3 [¶28] Specialized knowledge is not necessary, however, when a witness conveys only the factual information displayed on cell phone billing records. Perez v. State, 980 So.2d 1126, 1131-32 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008). A witness need not be an expert to explain that the timing column on a cell phone billing record refers to the time at which a call was made or received, or to explain that the “origination” column refers to the location of the cell tower used by a phone to make or receive a call. See id. [¶29] In this case, the Verizon employee did not opine on the minimum distance between a cell phone and cell tower required to make a connection between the two, or otherwise testify to matters of cell phone technology. She did not rely on specialized knowledge in explaining the timing and “origination” columns on the records. [¶30] The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Verizon employee’s testimony. Because the Verizon employee did not testify as an expert, 3 See generally Aaron Blank, The Limitations and Admissibility of Using Historical Cellular Site Data to Track the Location of a Cellular Phone, 18 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 3, 33 (2011). 15 we do not address Jeffrey’s contentions that the State violated the court’s discovery order. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. On the briefs: Richard L. Hartley, Esq., Law Office of Richard L. Hartley, Bangor, for appellant Jeffrrey P. Wyman R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney, and Tracy Collins Lacher, Asst. Dist. Atty., Prosecutorial District V, Bangor, for appellee State of Maine At oral argument: Richard L. Hartley, Esq., for appellant Jeffrrey P. Wyman Tracy Collins, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee State of Maine Penobscot County Unified Criminal Docket docket number CR-2012-3789 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY