Opinion ID: 2313338
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Expert Testimony Required

Text: In further support for his claim that Detective Skinner should not have been permitted to testify as an expert witness, Hudson maintains Detective Skinner's statement that his opinion was common sense, undermines the State's need for any expert testimony. Hudson asks rhetorically why an expert witness is needed to explain common sense? The State submits that it was unable to rely on the common sense of the jury in the facts presented by Hudson's case. We agree. This Court has stated: This Court has long held that possession, quantity and packaging of drugs are not necessarily sufficient, standing alone, to prove intent to deliver. The State must prove an additional element beyond possession, quantity and/or packaging to establish that the defendant was not possessing the drugs for personal consumption. This element can take the form of expert testimony, an admission by the defendant, or some other credible evidence linking the amount and packaging of drugs [the defendant] possessed with any intent to deliver those drugs. [9] In Cline, we held that [t]he trier-of-fact may not infer intent to deliver as a matter of `common experience' because [s]uch `common experience' cannot be cross-examined by the defendant. [10] In this case, the State offered the required evidence of Hudson's intent by way of Detective Skinner's expert opinion and Hudson was able to cross-examine the detective regarding his expert opinion. Therefore, we conclude that Hudson's contention that expert testimony was not necessary is without merit.