Summary
Raymond N. Rourke appealed his conviction for operating under the influence with one prior conviction, arguing that the trial court improperly excluded expert testimony concerning chemicals that allegedly could have falsely elevated his breath-alcohol test. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the expert testimony was properly excluded because it lacked sufficient reliability and a factual foundation linking the proposed opinion to Rourke's circumstances, and affirmed the judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion under the Maine Rules of Evidence by excluding expert testimony that hydrocarbon or other interferent chemicals could have affected Rourke's breath-alcohol test.
- Whether exclusion of the expert testimony violated Rourke's Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert testimony because the supporting studies did not involve the Intoxilyzer 8000 or comparable circumstances, the reliability of the supporting literature was not established, and the offer of proof did not provide evidence linking the hypothetical opinion to the degree of Rourke's actual chemical exposure.
- Excluding the proposed expert testimony under the Maine Rules of Evidence did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process because that right does not include an unfettered right to present incompetent or otherwise inadmissible evidence.
Key quotations
“Expert testimony that is not reliable has “no probative value,” id. ¶ 14, and cannot “satisfy the evidentiary requirements of relevance and helpfulness, and of avoidance of prejudice to [the opposing party] or confusion of the fact-finder,” State v. Boutilier, 426 A.2d 876, 879 (Me. 1981) (citing M.R. Evid. 402, 403, 702).” (¶ 11)
“In sum, the court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Demers’s testimony about the effect of hydrocarbons on the breath-alcohol test results because there was not a sufficient factual foundation to link Demers’s testimony with the facts of this case” (¶ 18)
Factual background
Police stopped Rourke for speeding after observing signs of alcohol use and impairment. An Intoxilyzer 8000 ultimately reported a breath-alcohol result of 0.11 grams per 210 liters of breath, after an earlier test produced a radio-frequency-interference error. Rourke sought to present expert testimony that hydrocarbons and other automotive chemicals, if present in his system, could falsely elevate the breath-test result, but the trial court found the testimony unreliable and insufficiently connected to the facts of his exposure.
Procedural history
Rourke was charged by complaint in September 2014 and pleaded not guilty. After a two-day jury trial in January 2016, the Sagadahoc County trial court excluded part of his proposed expert testimony, the jury found him guilty, and the court imposed a ninety-day jail term with all but seven days suspended, probation, a fine, and a three-year license suspension. Rourke timely appealed.