Opinion ID: 889252
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lay or Expert Opinion Testimony

Text: ¶ 39 We have held that opinion testimony regarding a defendant's ability to drive safely due to drug consumption is expert opinion testimony requiring a foundation under M.R. Evid. 702. Nobach, ¶ 22. In State v. Nobach , we reasoned that lay persons are not sufficiently knowledgeable about common symptoms of drug consumption, much less the effects of drug consumption on a person's ability to drive a motor vehicle safely, to offer lay opinion testimony on those subjects, based upon personal observations. Id. at ¶ 17. Moreover, we analogized such testimony to opinions offered regarding the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and found a similar need for proper foundation based upon training or education. Id. at ¶ 21. ¶ 40 At trial, Schmill and King each gave opinion testimony regarding Larson's ability to drive safely due to marijuana impairment. On direct, King's relevant testimony was: [King]: Okay. Starting with thethe pealing out through the intersection, aggressive driving, through the wide turn before he came to the stop, passing over in the oncoming traffic lane there, the slowed and slurred speech and reactions, thethe poor performance of the standardized field sobriety tests, maneuvers, and then the admission, and then of course him producing the bag of marijuana and the pipe, there was no doubt in my mind that his impairment was due to being under the influence of marijuana. [County Attorney]: So based on all of those observations during your interaction with the defendant, do you have an opinion as to whether he was impaired? [King]: I do. [County Attorney]: And what is that opinion? [King]: That he was impaired by marijuana. Schmill offered his opinion regarding the effects of marijuana impairment on driving: [County Attorney]: Okay. And based on your training and experience, if someone is impaired by marijuana, are they able to have all of their attention on all of the different things that they need to at the time to be a safe driver? [Schmill]: No. I don't believe so. Schmill also opined that Larson's driving was impaired due to marijuana: [County Attorney]: And based on your observations that night and the observations that Deputy King told you he made, putting all the pieces of the puzzle together that night, did you feel the defendant was impaired by marijuana? [Schmill]: I do. Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that both deputies provided opinion testimony regarding Larson's ability to drive safely as a result of consuming marijuana. ¶ 41 The State attempts to distinguish Nobach, arguing that the holding was limited to prescription drugs in a non-DUI context. However, such a narrow distinction is not in accord with the reasoning behind Nobach. Time may come where the average lay person will be able to opine as to the effects of marijuana consumption on motor vehicle operation, but for now the reasoning of Nobach is sound. We conclude the deputies' opinions that Larson's driving was impaired due to marijuana consumption were expert opinions that required adequate foundation under M.R. Evid. 702. [1]