Opinion ID: 1203361
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Doctor Pervier's Testimony

Text: Richey argues that the superior court erred in allowing Dr. Pervier to give his expert opinion without either sufficient hypothetical facts or credentials in accident reconstruction. As Oen points out, however, Richey never proffered this argument as part of her motion for a new trial or in her statement of points on appeal. Although Richey did object on foundational grounds to Dr. Pervier's testimony during the trial, Richey is not appealing an evidentiary ruling concerning the admissibility of Dr. Pervier's testimony. Instead, she is appealing the superior court's denial of her motion for a new trial. Thus, Richey's argument that the superior court erred in permitting Dr. Pervier's testimony is now raised for the first time. We find that because the superior court never considered whether admitting Dr. Pervier's testimony was grounds for a new trial, and because this case neither was tried to the court, Isaacs v. Hickey, 391 P.2d 449, 452 (Alaska 1964), nor warrants our use of the plain error rule, Matter of L.A.M., 727 P.2d 1057, 1059 (Alaska 1986), Richey's argument here is waived for purposes of this appeal. Evron v. Gilo, 777 P.2d 182, 186 (Alaska 1989).