State v. SAVICK
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1080
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant was convicted of four offenses including driving while intoxicated and resisted arrest after a high-speed pursuit.
- Officer Gooden testified to a drug recognition evaluation (DRE) indicating a central nervous system stimulant influence.
- Defendant objected to Gooden's DRE-based opinion as lacking proper Frye foundation for expert testimony.
- Trial court admitted Gooden's opinion over objection; defense motion for new trial denied.
- Appeals court assumed abuse for argument but found no prejudice, affirming the judgment.
- Video of the pursuit and other lay testimony supported impairment independent of Gooden's challenged testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Gooden's DRE opinion | State contends foundation suffices; error not prejudicial. | Savick argues no Frye foundation for category-specific intoxication. | Not outcome-determinative; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hall, 201 S.W.3d 599 (Mo.App.2006) (drugs/impaired driving proof via observation)
- State v. Madorie, 156 S.W.3d 351 (Mo.banc 2005) (evidentiary abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Tyra, 153 S.W.3d 341 (Mo.App.2005) (expert testimony admissibility framework)
- State v. Barriner, 210 S.W.3d 285 (Mo.App.2006) (prejudice analysis for evidentiary error)
- State v. Black, 50 S.W.3d 778 (Mo.banc 2001) (prejudice requirement for reversal)
- State v. Johnson, 207 S.W.3d 24 (Mo.banc 2006) (outcome-determinative prejudice standard)
- State v. Hoy, 219 S.W.3d 796 (Mo.App.2007) (define intoxicated condition elements)
- State v. Meanor, 863 S.W.2d 884 (Mo.banc 1993) (lay witness can prove intoxication)
- State v. Friend, 943 S.W.2d 800 (Mo.App.1997) (drugged condition elements for DUI)
- Hall, 201 S.W.3d 603 (Mo.App.2006) (drugs/impairment evidence admissibility standards)