finding that Pirtle does not apply to chemical breath tests
How later courts described this case
- finding that Pirtle does not apply to chemical breath tests
- suggesting that admission of evidence regarding statistical probability that an individual who failed a field sobriety test would have a BAC over .10 is improper in the State’s case-in-chief
- holding that Pirtle is not applicable to chemical breath tests
- while this rule allows an expert to testify to opinions based on material not before the trier of fact, it does not expressly provide a vehicle by which the trier of fact can learn of the underlying material
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BARNES, Judge,
concurring.
I coneur in the majority opinion in full, and write to acknowledge that I voted to concur in the Luckhart decision and its approval of an instruction similar to the one disapproved of in this case. At the time Luckhart was issued, our supreme court had not yet decided Ludy. Whatever the sequence, I am convinced that Dill and Ludy compel the result reached here and that my vote in Luekhart would not be the *947 same today, given the logic of the majority opinion and the combined effect of the Ludy and Dill decisions.