Court Opinion

ID: 9791354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:09:32.526964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:35.719338
License: Public Domain

RABTNOWITZ, Chief Justice
(dissenting in part).
My sole disagreement with the court’s opinion arises from the majority’s conclusion to remand to the superior court for a determination of Officer Burnett’s qualifications as an expert. For, in my view, the exclusion .of Officer Burnett’s opinion testimony in the factual context of this record was harmless error under the standards of Love v. State, 457 P.2d 622, 631 (Alaska 1969).
Here the majority opinion recognizes that there is testimony in the record establishing the speed of Officer Michael Lester’s vehicle, the road conditions, traffic conditions, and that the existence of the particular snow bank may’ have obscured visibility. In light of these circumstances, I do not think that the jury could have received appreciable assistance from the opinions of the purported expert, Officer Burnett. Ferrell v. Baxter, 484 P.2d 250, 269 (Alaska 1971).