Court Opinion

ID: 9725666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:58:34.06343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:17.695284
License: Public Domain

*410HANING, J.
I concur in the result, but disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the officer was qualified to testify, in the form of an opinion, about the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. “An opinion is an inference from facts observed. One of the fundamental theories of the law of evidence, expressed in the opinion rule, is that witnesses must ordinarily testify to facts, leaving inferences or conclusions to the jury or court. [Citations.]” (1 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (3d ed. 1986) § 447.) There are, of course, exceptions, such as those for expert witnesses and in those situations when the facts observed by lay witnesses “are too complex or too subtle to enable them accurately to convey them to court or jury in any other manner. [Citations.]” (Manney v. Housing Authority (1947) 79 Cal.App.2d 453, 459 [180 P.2d 69]; Chatman v. Alameda County Flood Control etc. Dist. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 424, 429 [228 Cal.Rptr. 257]; Evid. Code, § 800.)
Witnesses are qualified to testify as experts only if they have special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify them as an expert on the subject to which their testimony relates. (Evid. Code, § 720, subd. (a).) A lay witness may testify that a person was intoxicated because this is the sort of opinion that is not restricted to experts, but is of sufficient common knowledge that it may be expressed by laypersons. (People v. Ravey (1954) 122 Cal.App.2d 699, 702-703 [265 P.2d 154]; People v. Garcia (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 639, 643, fn. 3 [104 Cal.Rptr. 69]; see also, Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (a).) However, a lay witness may not render an opinion that a person was intoxicated if that opinion is based on a scientific test. (1 Witkin, Cal. Evidence, op. cit. supra, §471.)
In this instance the officer testified to his observations of a physiological phenomenon—appellant’s eye movement. Those observations are irrelevant in this case unless it is established on the record that they are indicative that the person being examined is under the influence of alcohol. The only evidence in this record that the HGN test is a reliable indicator of being under the influence of alcohol came from the officer himself. I submit that the HGN phenomenon is not sufficiently within common experience that it is readily understood or accepted as an indicator of intoxication. (See, e.g., Evid. Code, § 801.) Consequently, any explanation of the effects of alcohol on eye movement should be given only by an expert.
The officer did not, and could not, testify as to the level of blood alcohol necessary to produce HGN. Is it .10 percent, .08 percent, .008 percent, .001 percent, or some other (lesser or greater) amount? Will any amount of alcohol ingested produce HGN? Will any other substance, such as tobacco or caffeine (both of which are commonly used by persons drinking alcoholic beverages) produce HGN? Can it be produced by prescription drugs or *411fatigue? Does the HGN test pass Kelly/Frye1 muster; if so, this record does not establish that it does, and the officer is not qualified to establish that fact. In short, there is no evidence in the record to establish that the officer was qualified to render an opinion about the relationship of alcohol ingestion and HGN. Consequently, the admission of that opinion was error.
I am puzzled by the majority’s statement that “[w]e do not hold that HGN is a reliable indicator of alcohol intoxication [or] that the HGN test meets Kelly/Frye standards . . . ,” and yet they conclude that the untrained officer is qualified to render a scientific opinion to the contrary. This analysis simply eludes me. I find the rationale of People v. Loomis (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [203 Cal.Rptr. 767] more persuasive.
In summary, I conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the officer’s HGN opinion, but that the error was harmless in light of the blood-alcohol evidence and other evidence of driving under the influence. The HGN opinion was unnecessary to the People’s case.

 People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 [130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240]; Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013 [130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240].