State v. Rourke

[¶ 1] Raymond N. Rourke III appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating under the influence with one prior conviction (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(B)(1) (2016), entered in the trial court (Sagadahoc County, Horton, J.) after a jury trial. Rourke argues that the court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony that certain chemicals, if present in Rourke’s system, could have resulted in a falsely elevated breath-alcohol test.1 We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[If 2] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could rationally have found the…