State v. Chapman

Citations

• 2017 Ohio 8181

Syllabus

EXPERT TESTIMONY - OVI: In a prosecution for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding as irrelevant expert testimony regarding defendant's performance on field-sobriety tests from a chiropractor who had only seen defendant three times and had not seen him for over a year prior to the date of the offense. [See CONCURRENCE: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony where the chiropractor was unaware of defendant's condition at the time of the offense and the testimony was equivocal.] [But see DISSENT: The trial court abused its discretion in excluding the chiropractor's testimony where he was qualified as an expert, he had personally examined and treated defendant, and, as an expert, he could have based his opinion on facts personally perceived by him or admitted into evidence any questions about how often and how long ago the chiropractor had seen defendant went to the weight of the testimony and not its admissibility.]