182 Conn. App. 706
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Sept. 6, 2014, Trooper Joel Contreras stopped Paul Wynne after observing lane drifting and crossing the fog line on I‑95; when Wynne lowered his window Contreras smelled alcohol and marijuana.
- Wynne admitted to two beers and smoking a joint earlier; Breathalyzer at 10:41 p.m. read .0352 BAC (below .08).
- Wynne was unsteady exiting the vehicle, displayed 7/8 clues on the walk‑and‑turn and 3/4 clues on the one‑leg stand, and showed lack of smooth pursuit on HGN testing. He was arrested for operating under the influence (behavioral prong of Conn. Gen. Stat. §14‑227a).
- The state’s drug recognition expert, Trooper Tom Ehret, testified about how low levels of alcohol combined with marijuana affect performance on field sobriety tests and opined, in response to a hypothetical based on Contreras’s observations, that the subject would be impaired.
- Wynne was convicted by a jury and sentenced; he appealed claiming (1) insufficient evidence and (2) trial court abuse in admitting Ehret’s testimony (failure to hold Porter/Daubert hearing; relevance; hypothetical; BAC‑equivalency testimony).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Wynne's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict under §14‑227a(a)(1) (behavioral prong) | Officer observed driving impairment, odor of alcohol/marijuana, Wynne admitted use, poor performance on FSTs; expert linked marijuana+alcohol to those FST clues | Cross‑fogline driving and test performance could be explained by non‑intoxication reasons; BAC .035 is below legal limit | Evidence sufficient — reasonable jury could find behavioral impairment beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether trial court should have held a Porter/Daubert gatekeeping hearing for Ehret | Ehret offered only non‑scientific background on combined effects (not an opinion on Wynne’s intoxication); relevance and admissibility satisfied | Court should have held Porter hearing because Ehret did not personally observe Wynne and methods should be tested for scientific validity | Claim not preserved; no plain error — admission appropriate on offered scope (effects of marijuana+alcohol generally) |
| Relevance and admissibility of Ehret’s non‑observational testimony | Testimony about general physiological/effects and how combination affects FSTs is relevant and material to whether combined use could explain observed clues | Irrelevant because Ehret lacked personal observation of Wynne; testimony might confuse jury | Admission not an abuse of discretion — testimony was relevant to material question (combined‑use effects) |
| Permitting expert to answer hypothetical and discuss BAC‑equivalency from combined use | Hypothetical mirrored trial evidence; expert’s literature reference (NHTSA study) explained how combined low levels could equal higher BAC effects | Hypothetical invaded ultimate issue; BAC‑equivalency testimony violated §14‑227a(c) / should be excluded | Objections unpreserved; appellate review denied (no Golding/ plain‑error relief). Court did not abuse discretion given defendant opened door to Breathalyzer evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (Conn. 1997) (trial court gatekeeping for scientific expert evidence)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (federal standard for admissibility of scientific expert evidence)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (test for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Stovall, 316 Conn. 514 (Conn. 2015) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)