Opinion ID: 1679052
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the lower court erred in allowing the state's witness, sharon jones, to testify on matters outside her area of expertise.

Text: Sharon Jones was employed by the State Crime Lab as a forensic scientist specializing in blood alcohol concentration determination. She held a Bachelor of Chemistry degree from Jackson State University and had performed over 2,000 blood alcohol tests. The lower court accepted her as an expert in the field of blood alcohol determination. Appellant declined to voir dire the witness. The State asked Miss Jones about the rate of dissipation of alcohol in the blood stream, and appellant objected on the ground that the question called for a conclusion beyond Jones' area of expertise. The objection was overruled, and Jones stated that she had done reading on that area. She testified that blood alcohol dissipates at the rate of .015% per hour. Having previously established that a blood sample taken from appellant at 8:00 a.m. showed a blood alcohol content of .09%, Jones used simple math to determine that at 4:30 a.m. appellant's blood alcohol content would have been .12%. [2] The qualifications of an expert in applicable fields of scientific knowledge is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. His determination on this issue will not be reversed unless it clearly appears that the witness was not qualified. Hollingsworth v. Bovaird Supply Co., 465 So.2d 311 (Miss. 1985); Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445 (Miss. 1984); Grinnell v. State, 230 So.2d 555 (Miss. 1970). We are of the opinion that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the expert testimony. The assigned Error VI is rejected. There being no reversible errors in the trial below, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and ROBERTSON, PRATHER, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.