Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2/3/1997

Commonwealth v. Sands

Citations

424 Mass. 184
675 N.E.2d 370
1997 Mass. LEXIS 22

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

expert testimony required to assist jury in understanding correlation between intoxication and movement of eyeballs
“expert’s qualifications and the logical basis of the testimony can be effectively tested through cross examination and rebuttal evidence”
“basis of [expert] testimony can be effectively tested through cross-examination and rebuttal evidence”
HGN test result evidence requires expert testimony due to test's scientific nature
“party seeking to introduce scientific evidence may lay a foundation either by showing that the underlying scientific theory is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community, or by showing that the theory is reliable or valid through other means” [emphasis added]
trial court erred by allowing officer to testify about HGN test results without being qualified as an expert, but indicating that HGN test results would be admissible if supported by expert testimony from the person administering the test

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Abrams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

60 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.