Boating under the influence -- Evidence -- Expert -- Blood alcohol content -- Retrograde extrapolation. Defense claim that the testimony of state's expert, who used retrograde extrapolation to estimate that defendant's blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeded the legal limit at time of the accident, was speculative because expert lacked information necessary to assume that defendant's BAC was declining at time of the accident, such as when defendant had her last drink or what and when she had eaten. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting state expert's testimony. The lack of information cited by defendant, which was presented and argued to the jury, goes to the weight of the expert's testimony and not its admissibility when the expert testifies that additional facts such as defendant's performance on field sobriety tests and observations of defendant's behavior were to confirm the opinion.
Read Opinion Below: