Legal Opinion

State v. McFarland

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 13, 2008No. 032017MI; A126562PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWollheim, J.

Defendant appeals her conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.010(4). Defendant argues that the trial court erred in permitting a drug recognition expert (DRE) trainee who was not certified as a DRE officer to testify about the administration and results of a DRE protocol that he administered. We review for errors of law, Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 331 Or 285, 299, 14 P3d 596 (2000), and we hold that a DRE trainee is not qualified to provide expert testimony regarding his assessment of the DRE protocol. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

The relevant facts…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 2003
  2. State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  3. State v. O'KeyOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State v. SampsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. MazzolaOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  2. State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  3. State v. DunningCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  4. State v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2021
  5. State v. MazzolaOregon Supreme Court · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API