Opinion ID: 1952443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the admission of expert testimony on the effects of alcohol

Text: The next issue raised by Moorhead concerns the testimony of Dr. Ali Hameli, an expert witness testifying on behalf of the State, regarding the effects of alcohol on an individual, and the relation between the amount of alcohol consumption and the risk of an automobile accident. Specifically, Dr. Hameli testified that a person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10 percent is four times more likely to be involved in an accident than a sober person, and a person with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.20 percent is 28 times more likely to be involved in an accident than a sober person. Moorhead's blood alcohol concentration was 0.22 percent. Moorhead does not dispute the qualifications of Dr. Hameli or the accuracy of his testimony. Rather, Moorhead claims that the statistical information provided by Dr. Hameli was not relevant to Moorhead's intent because the State failed to establish that Moorhead knew of those statistics. Moorhead therefore argues that the Superior Court erred by admitting this evidence. A decision to admit testimony as relevant is within the sound discretion of the Trial Judge and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Lampkins v. State, Del.Supr., 465 A.2d 785, 790 (1983). We find no such abuse of discretion. The expert testimony was clearly probative on the degree of risk that resulted from Moorhead consuming enough alcohol to have a blood alcohol concentration of 0.22 percent. The nature of the risk threatened by Moorhead's conduct bore directly on whether he acted recklessly, which is a statutory element of murder in the second degree. 11 Del.C. §§ 231(c), 635. [8] Furthermore, the additional risk posed by increased alcohol consumption was relevant to Moorhead's cruel, wicked and depraved indifference to human life, another necessary element of murder in the second degree. At trial, Moorhead's counsel conceded that [e]verybody knows, the more you drink the more inebriated you get. Defendant's Appendix at A-68. Dr. Hameli's testimony aided the jury in understanding the correlation between increased intoxication and the danger threatened to others. Thus, it was proper expert testimony in that it assist[ed] the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.... D.R.E. 702. Moorhead's reliance on Powell v. State, Del.Supr., 527 A.2d 276 (1987) is misplaced. In Powell, expert testimony regarding the truthfulness of children who testify in a sexual abuse case was introduced, not to explain or clarify a material fact or issue, but to bolster the credibility of the victim's testimony. [9] This Court therefore found that the defendant in Powell was deprived of a substantial right which jeopardized the fairness and integrity of his trial. Id. at 280. In the present case, the evidence was not used in such a manner. Moreover, the jury was given a limiting instruction in this case. Finally, there is no evidence that the jury gave the evidence undue attention or weight. Accordingly, we find that Dr. Hameli's expert testimony was relevant to the issues in dispute, and the Superior Court therefore did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.