Opinion ID: 1846967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Field Sobriety Test Studies

Text: Daly also objected to several exhibits that were entered into evidence at the Daubert/Schafersman hearing. First, Daly complains about Exhibits 20 through 26, which he describes as validation studies in regards to standardized field sobriety tests. [47] (Exhibit 20 does not fit this description; we assume that its inclusion in this argument is merely a typographical error in Daly's brief.) Daly argues that [w]ith the question being the admissibility of the DRE program protocols and/or testimony derived therefrom due to the qualities of proffering a medical diagnosis on the basis of vital sign examination, pupillary examinations, and or toxicologythe basis upon which there may have been research in regards to Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, the Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, is irrelevant. [48] This argument is not entirely clear to us. Because standard field sobriety tests are included in the DRE protocol, scientific examination of those tests would be relevant. And Page referred to the studies as part of the basis for his testimony regarding the DRE protocol. We find no merit to Daly's assertion that the evidence was irrelevant. Daly also argues that the evidence was hearsay. But the evidence was used as foundation for Page's testimony and was admissible to show the basis for his opinion. [49] Finally, Daly argues that the evidence violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. [50] He waived this ground for his objection by not raising it in the trial court. [51] And in any event, it is well established that Confrontation Clause rights are trial rights that do not extend to pretrial hearings in state proceedings. [52]