Opinion ID: 1846967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Daly's Motion for Findings of Fact

Text: After the county court filed its written ruling that Hilger's opinion was admissible, Daly filed a Motion for Findings of Fact asking the court for specific rulings on a number of particular questions. The court denied the motion, and Daly claims on appeal that this was error. A trial court's gatekeeping duty requires is to adequately demonstrate by specific findings on the record that it has performed that duty, because the losing party is entitled to know that the trial court has engaged in the heavy cognitive burden of determining whether the challenged testimony was relevant and reliable and to a record that allows for meaningful appellate review. [63] And meaningful appellate review requires the court to `explain its choices' so that the appellate court has an adequate basis to determine whether the analytical path taken by the trial court was within the range of reasonable methods for distinguishing reliable expert testimony from false expertise. [64] So, we explained in Zimmerman v. Powell [65] that [a] trial court adequately demonstrates that it has performed its gatekeeping duty when the record shows (1) the court's conclusion whether the expert's opinion is admissible and (2) the reasoning the court used to reach that conclusion, specifically noting the factors bearing on reliability that the court relied on in reaching its determination. The county court held several pretrial hearings in this case regarding the DRE protocol and eventually entered an 11page order that summarized the history of the DRE protocol, the process of DRE examination, the evidence presented, and the court's findings regarding the reliability of the protocol and the admissibility of Hilger's opinion testimony. The county court's order satisfies the requirements articulated in Zimmerman, demonstrating that the court considered the issues carefully and conscientiously performed its gatekeeping duty. Daly's appellate argument consists of repeating the assertions he made in his motion, that certain findings were necessary, [66] without explaining why they were necessary for the court to perform its gatekeeping function. For instance, Daly claims that it was necessary to clarify the appropriate definition of `drug,' it was necessary to clarify whether any or all of the various 12-step protocols and its varied components collectively and/or individually may be presented regarding intoxication, impairment, or exposure to a particular class of drug or alcohol, and [i]t was necessary to clarify whether the DRE protocol(s) are deemed as being subject to a specific margin of error, and specifically what the Court determined that margin of error to be. [67] But those findings were not necessary to resolve the issues presented at the Daubert/Schafersman hearing, nor are they essential to our appellate review. While Daly was entitled to ask the court for clarification on issues he thought were important, he has identified no prejudicial error in the court's failure to answer his questions. The court's findings were more than sufficient to satisfy its gatekeeping duty. We find no merit to Daly's argument to the contrary.