Legal Opinion

State v. Rothlisberger

Utah Supreme Court

Decided September 8, 2006No. 20040745PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DURRANT, Justice:

INTRODUCTION

T1 The issue before us is whether testimony as to the quantity of methamphetamine typifying personal use is expert testimony pursuant to rule 702 of the Utah Rules of Evidence and therefore subject to the qualification and advance disclosure requirements associated with that classification of testimony. We conclude that fact or opinion testimony based on specialized knowledge may be admitted only as expert testimony. We further agree with the court of appeals that Chief Kent Adair's testimony at trial regarding personal use quantities of methamphetamine was expert…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. State v. BrownTennessee Supreme Court · 1992
  2. United States v. NovationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2001
  3. State v. RimmaschUtah Supreme Court · 1989
  4. United States v. Figueroa-LopezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
  5. United States v. Larry M. McDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. State v. MaestasUtah Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Arbogast Family Trust v. River Crossings, LLCUtah Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. AlexanderUtah Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Robinson v. Paul Ray Taylor, M.D.Utah Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Staley v. NORTHERN UTAH HEALTHCAREUtah Supreme Court · 2010

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API