The Appeals Court has upheld the conviction of an OUI defendant who lost his district court jury trial. State police first encountered the defendant, Giancarlo Perez, after he crashed his car on Route 16 in Everett around midnight in January 2019.
The trooper who spoke with Giancarlo detected the odor of alcohol on his breath. Additionally, the trooper observed that Giancarlo’s eyes were bloodshot and his speech was slurred.
Giancarlo failed the field sobriety test and was placed under arrest for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
At the state police barracks, Giancarlo became impatient with the trooper booking him. He allegedly complained that the process was taking too long and asked the trooper if “you are doing this on purpose, or are you just an idiot?” He then added “You’re probably just an idiot.”
After these insults, Giancarlo began to cry and stated “he knew he had messed up, but he only had two beers.”
At trial the trooper who conducted the field sobriety test (FST) testified that
He received one week of training related to field sobriety testing and the investigation of people suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol.
The defendant’s attorney did not object to this testimony.
Next the trooper stated that, in his opinion, the defendant was intoxicated at the time of their encounter. Defense counsel did object to this statement.
During closing argument, the prosecutor made reference to both the trooper’s FST training and his opinion regarding the defendant’s sobriety.
No objection was made and ultimately the jury convicted Giancarlo of operating under the influence of alcohol.
He appealed the verdict arguing that the trooper improperly turned himself into an expert witness by testifying about his FST training. Moreover, according to defense counsel, it was improper for the trooper to give his opinion on the defendant’s state of sobriety.
The Appeals Court rejected both of the defendant’s arguments and upheld the conviction.
First regarding the trooper’s testimony on his FST training, the court wrote,
Trooper Sousa was certainly permitted to testify about his training and experience so that the jury could conclude that the field sobriety tests were administered properly by someone who knew how to administer them. Had the defendant requested an instruction to the effect that the officer’s opinion regarding the defendant’s level of sobriety or intoxication was not an expert opinion based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge, but, rather, was a lay opinion that the jury could accept, accept in part, or reject — as with any other admissible lay opinion testimony — the judge would have been warranted in providing it. Nonetheless, the judge’s failure to give one sua sponte did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice because the case against the defendant was strong.
The Appeals Court further noted that troopers are permitted to give their lay opinion on whether or not an OUI defendant was intoxicated:
In a prosecution for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, lay witnesses, including police officers, may not opine as to the ultimate question whether the defendant was operating while under the influence, but they may testify to his apparent intoxication. Here, the question called for Trooper Sousa to offer an admissible lay opinion, and thus the testimony was permissible. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
Accordingly, the jury’s verdict was affirmed.
To read the case, in its entirety, click the document below: