Opinion ID: 2762414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Type of Witness Involved

Text: The witness who offered the challenged testimony was a state trooper. Opinion testimony from police officers carries an 'aura of reliability' that could unduly influence a jury. State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 595, 183 P.3d 267 (2008) (quoting Demery, 144 Wn.2d at 765). This factor weighs against admissibility. B. Nature of the Charges and the Specific Nature of the Testimony The charge at issue was DUI, and the testimony was that Trooper Stone had no doubt Quaale was impaired. PVRP at 33. Generally, that type of testimony is admissible, as officers as well as laypersons may offer an opinion that a defendant was intoxicated. State v. Easter, 130 Wn.2d 228, 235, 922 P.2d 1285 (1996) (citing State v. Forsyth, 131 Wash. 611,230 P. 821 (1924)). However, opinion testimony should be avoided if the information can be presented in such a way that the jury can draw its own conclusions. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d at 591. Also, opinions on ultimate issues are more problematic when the opinions parrot the legal standard. !d. at 594. 7 State v. Quaale No. 89666-6 Owens, J., Dissenting Trooper Stone's testimony did not parrot the legal standard, and it is substantially similar to testimony our courts have found not to be improper opinions on guilt. First, Trooper Stone's opinion did not parrot the legal standard, as the word impaired does not appear in the DUI statute. See RCW 46.61.502. Rather, a person is guilty of a DUI for driving [ w ]hile the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor. RCW 46.61.502(1 )(c). Trooper Stone did not testify that he believed Quaale was under the influence or affected by intoxicating liquor. Rather, he testified that he believed Quaale was impaired. PVRP at 33. Second, Trooper Stone's no doubt testimony is permissible conclusory language in a DUI trial not premised on the breath test. As discussed above, I find Heatley persuasive and analogous to this case, and we have cited favorably to it on several occasions. In Heatley, the prosecutor asked the arresting officer to give his opinion regarding the 'defendant's impairment due to his use of alcohol.' 70 Wn. App. at 576. The officer responded: Based on my, his physical appearance and my observations of that and based on all the tests I gave him as a whole, I determined that Mr. Heatley was obviously intoxicated and affected by the alcoholic drink that he'd been, he could not drive a motor vehicle in a safe manner. At that time, I did place Mr. Heatley under arrest for DWI. Id. Our Court of Appeals held that testimony did not amount to an impermissible opinion on guilt. I d. at 580. It reasoned that the officer did not directly testify that he felt the defendant was guilty. ld. at 579. The fact that the opinion directly supported 8 State v. Quaale No. 89666-6 Owens, J., Dissenting a finding of guilt did not disqualify it; instead, the court noted that '[i]t is the very fact that such opinions imply that the defendant is guilty which makes the evidence relevant and material.' Id. (quoting State v. Wilber, 55 Wn. App. 294, 298 n.l, 777 P.2d 36 (1989)). Moreover, the court reasoned that the officer based his opinion on his experience and his personal observations of the defendant's appearance and performance of field sobriety tests. !d. Thus, the opinion had a foundation that 'directly and logically' supported the officer's conclusion. Id. (quoting State v. Allen, 50 Wn. App. 412,418,749 P.2d 702 (1988)). I find few differences here. Trooper Stone never testified that he thought Quaale was guilty ofDUI. Instead, he testified about the HGN test, Quaale's dangerous and poor driving, and the strong odor of intoxicants on Quaale's breathall of which directly and logically support Trooper Stone's conclusion that he had no doubt Quaale was impaired. Although the prosecutor unartfully asked whether Trooper Stone formed an opinion based on the HGN test alone, any rational juror would have clearly processed Trooper Stone's opinion in conjunction with his personal observations ofQuaale's dangerous driving and breath. The fact that Trooper Stone's testimony directly supports a finding of guilt is not fatal-that is precisely what makes it relevant. And Trooper Stone's no doubt language mirrors the permissible conclusory term that the defendant was 'obviously intoxicated' in Heatley. Id. at 576. 9 State v. Quaale No. 89666-6 Owens, J., Dissenting Because Trooper Stone's testimony did not parrot the legal standard and is permissible conclusory language, these factors weigh in favor of admissibility. C. The Type of Defense Quaale' s primary defense was that Trooper Stone failed to conduct a thorough investigation. Trooper Stone's no doubt testimony did nothing to hinder Quaale's defense; arguably, it strengthened it. Read in isolation, Trooper Stone testified that based on the HGN test alone he concluded Quaale was impaired. On crossexamination, the officer acknowledged that there are other standard field sobriety tests that he did not perform, including the walk and turn and the one leg stand, because he did not want to risk Quaale running off again. PVRP at 34-3 5. He also acknowledged that his police report failed to include anything about Quaale's coordination, attitude, or clothes, or whether he had watery or bloodshot eyes, a flushed face, or slurred speech. Quaale was able to develop his defense attacking the investigation and Trooper Stone's credibility for basing his conclusion solely on the HGN test. Additionally, the defense differentiated between the level of certainty needed to make an arrest and the level needed to convict. Trooper Stone readily acknowledged that his investigation is intended to develop probable cause and that probable cause is not the same as beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, Trooper Stone's testimony arguably strengthened Quaale's defense. This factor weighs in favor of admissibility. 10 State v. Quaale No. 89666-6 Owens, J., Dissenting D. The Other Evidence The evidence presented to the jury other than the HGN test was the strong intoxicant odor ofQuaale's breath and his dangerous driving. As mentioned above, this court has cautioned that opinion testimony should be avoided if the information can be presented in such a way that the jury can draw its own conclusions. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d at 591. But here, the State could not present additional evidence in a way that would have better allowed the jury to draw its own conclusions about Quaale's impairment because ofQuaale's bad conduct. Trooper Stone did not · conduct other field sobriety tests because Quaale had just led him on a chase down a residential road at night, and far from backup in a remote area, Trooper Stone feared that Quaale would attempt to flee again if he released him to perform the other tests. The State could not submit evidence from a breath test because Quaale refused to take it. The State has a legitimate concern when it asks, How would DUI prosecutions based on a refusal to take the breath test be prosecuted if the police officer cannot express an opinion regarding the defendant's impairment? Suppl. Br. ofPet'r at 8. The majority's decision will seriously hinder DUI prosecutions in which defendants refuse the breath test and are so uncooperative that field sobriety tests other than the HGN test are not feasible. In DUI prosecutions not involving the breath test, the State often has to prove that the suspect was affected by alcohol using officer testimony alone. The evidence 11 State v. Quaale No. 89666-6 Owens, J., Dissenting rules allow that testimony to go to the ultimate factual issue before the jury. ER 704. And, as in this case, that testimony is permissible as long as an officer refrains from testifying that he or she believes that the defendant is guilty. This factor does not weigh against admissibility because the State did not rely solely on the HGN test to prove guilt and Quaale's bad conduct hindered Trooper Stone's ability to administer the other field sobriety tests. Thus, after analyzing the factors, I would find Trooper Stone's testimony permissible. While one factor-the fact that the testimony came from a state trooper-weighs against admissibility, the other factors either weigh in favor of admissibility or are neutral at best.