O'Hara v. State

O’Hara appeals his conviction and sentence for DUI manslaughter. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the state’s motion in limine precluding his defense based on causation, by permitting two troopers to testify as experts, by denying his requested instruction on causation, and by instructing the jury regarding a blood alcohol level presumption. We agree as to the first issue and reverse without addressing the remaining issues raised on appeal.

As this court noted in Satterfield v. State, 553 So.2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), uncertainty existed at the time these…