State v. Wilson, 337 P.3d 948

Defendant crashed a car after running a red light; occupants of the other vehicle were injured; defendant was charged with DUII and related offenses.
Officer Burge responded, observed dilated pupils, red/puffy "spider web" eyes, glassy eyes, and smelled alcohol; one passenger admitted drinking and prior marijuana use; defendant refused field sobriety tests but later admitted drinking and earlier marijuana use and provided blood/urine samples.
Initial blood test showed BAC .085; later retest months later showed .074.
Burge had extensive DUII and DRE training but did not complete the 12-step DRE protocol at the scene and did not perform specialized DRE tests (e.g., darkroom pupilometry).
At trial the court barred Burge from identifying himself as a certified DRE but allowed him to testify about his training, observations (pupil size, eye appearance, odor), and give a nonscientific expert opinion that defendant was impaired by both alcohol and marijuana.
Defendant appealed, arguing Burge’s opinion about marijuana impairment was scientific evidence requiring a DRE foundation; the state argued it was nonscientific expert testimony admissible under OEC 702.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of officer’s opinion that defendant was impaired by marijuana	State: Officer may testify based on training/experience as nonscientific expert under OEC 702	Defendant: Opinion rested on incomplete DRE protocol and was scientific evidence needing foundational proof of scientific validity	Court: Admission proper as nonscientific expert opinion; testimony drew force from experience, not scientific methodology
Admission of pupil-dilation and eye-condition observations	State: Observations are lay-expert observations admissible without DRE protocol; officer did not perform scientific pupilometry	Defendant: Such evidence conveys scientific aura (research/DRE) and should be excluded without full DRE protocol	Court: Observations of pupil dilation and eye appearance (without darkroom testing) are admissible as nonscientific expert evidence; did not possess increased scientific influence

State v. Sampson, 167 Or App 489 (discusses DRE protocol as potentially scientific and need for foundation)
State v. Aman, 194 Or App 463 (incompletely administered DRE protocol cannot be admitted as scientific evidence; individual components may be nonscientific)
State v. Rambo, 250 Or App 186 (officer opinion based on training/experience admissible as nonscientific even if relying on DRE-component observations)
State v. Beck, 254 Or App 60 (distinguishes measured pupilometry as more problematic; observational pupil testimony may be admissible)
State v. Marrington, 335 Or 555 (test for whether expert testimony will be perceived as scientific by the trier of fact)
State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 (definition and characteristics of scientific evidence)