# State v. Blackwell

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 14, 2009 · 408 Md. 677

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9750695

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Maryland v. Paul Benjamin BLACKWELL
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** May 14, 2009
- **Citations:** 408 Md. 677; 971 A.2d 296; 2009 Md. LEXIS 62
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Murphy
- **Judges:** Bell, Harrell, Greene, Murphy, Adkins, Barbera, Eldridge
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9750695

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that testimony about defendant’s performance on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, a roadside sobriety test, by a state trooper who had not been qualified as an expert, constituted expert testimony subject to the strictures of Maryland Rule 5-702
- explaining why the court was unable to conclude that erroneously admitted HGN testimony in no way influenced the jury‟s DUI guilty verdict
- holding that testimony concerning a scientific test fell under Maryland Rule 5-702

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion,
MURPHY, J.
I agree with the majority and the Court of Special Appeals that “testimony about the HGN test constituted expert testimony,” and “is admissible in evidence pursuant to Md. Rule 5-702.” I do not agree, however, that the Circuit Court admitted the testimony about Respondent’s performance on the HGN test “without first making a preliminary legal determination that [Trooper] Linger was qualified to testify as an expert witness.”
The record shows that the Circuit Court told the prosecutor that, “[i]f you are going to use the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, you must lay a foundation that the witness is qualified to administer it.” The record also shows that the foundational requirements had been satisfied before the Circuit Court stated, “go ahead” to the prosecutor, and overruled the objection to Trooper Linger’s testimony.
It is of no consequence that the Circuit Court did not expressly state that it found Trooper Linger to be an “expert,” because many lawyers and judges strongly believe that it is the better practice for the trial judge to avoid using that term in the presence of the jury. In the case at bar, the Circuit Court in essence stated to the prosecutor, “you may proceed [to present the expert testimony].” I am persuaded that this ruling was neither erroneous nor an unfairly prejudicial abuse *700 of discretion. I would therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9750695. Public record. Not legal advice.