Opinion ID: 885534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Did the Municipal Court err in admitting the officer's testimony regarding the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test results without expert testimony establishing the test's reliability?

Text: ¶ 43 The Municipal Court permitted an officer to testify regarding the HGN test results over objection from Robertson's counsel that such evidence requires a foundation of expert testimony establishing reliability. The testifying officer conceded, in fact, that he lacked the expertise to testify as to the test's scientific reliability. Robertson contends that allowing the officer's testimony regarding the test results was reversible error. As with the foregoing issue, we will review the Municipal Court's evidentiary ruling to determine whether the court abused its discretion. Fenton, ¶ 11. ¶ 44 In Hulse v. State, 1998 MT 108, ¶ 72, 289 Mont. 1, ¶ 72, 961 P.2d 75,¶ 72, this Court held that in order to lay the proper foundation for admitting the results of the HGN test, [1] the State, in addition to showing that the test was properly administered, must also establish a scientific basis for the reliability of the test results. We stated in Hulse that an expert explaining the correlation between alcohol consumption and nystagmus, the underlying scientific basis of the HGN test must be offered prior to the introduction into evidence of HGN test results. Hulse, ¶ 72. This holding served to clarify our prior decision in State v. Clark (1988), 234 Mont. 222, 762 P.2d 853, which implied, but did not expressly hold, that expert testimony regarding scientific reliability was required to establish a proper foundation. See Clark, 234 Mont. at 227-28, 762 P.2d at 857. ¶ 45 This matter was tried, as well as reviewed on appeal by the District Court, prior to our decision in Hulse. Because we give retroactive effect to judicial decisions, Hulse is applicable in the case sub judice although it was not available to either court. See State v. Steinmetz, 1998 MT 114, ¶ 10, 288 Mont. 527, ¶ 10, 961 P.2d 95, ¶ 10. ¶ 46 Pursuant to our holding in Hulse, we agree with Robertson that the Municipal Court abused its discretion in permitting the officer to offer the HGN results into evidence without the State first establishing the requisite scientific basis for the test's reliability. However, we also concluded in Hulse that, although the district court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence without a proper foundation, it was harmless error. In determining harmless error, we have often relied on the overwhelming evidence rule. See State v. Berosik, 1999 MT 238, ¶ 21, 296 Mont. 165, ¶ 21, 988 P.2d 775, ¶ 21. This Court has noted that the federal harmless error rule and Montana's harmless error rule are essentially the same, and that in either case overwhelming evidence of a defendant's guilt can render harmless a district court's error. See State v. Fuhrmann (1996), 278 Mont. 396, 407, 925 P.2d 1162, 1169. See also Hulse, ¶ 73 (identifying additional evidence of bloodshot eyes, smell of alcohol, lack of coordination, and failing two other field sobriety tests). ¶ 47 Similarly, other overwhelming evidence of Robertson's condition was presented to the jury in this matter. Evidence of Robertson failing two other sobriety tests was uncontested. A station house video tape was admitted into evidence and played for the jury wherein Robertson refused to perform sobriety tests after having already failed them. Likewise, he refused to submit to a breathalyzer. Identical to the testimony in Hulse, Officer Heinle testified he smelled alcohol on Robertson's breath, Robertson's speech was slurred, and he displayed an obvious lack of balance after getting out of his vehicle. ¶ 48 Section 46-20-701(1), MCA, provides that [a] cause may not be reversed by reason of any error committed by the trial court against the convicted person unless the record shows that the error was prejudicial. We agree with City that Robertson has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the introduction of this evidence. We therefore conclude that, in light of the overwhelming evidence offered by the State, the introduction into evidence of the HGN test was harmless error.