State v. Atkins
Annotate this CaseAfter a nonjury trial, Defendant was convicted of operating under the influence (OUI) enhanced with one prior OUI conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred by allowing the arresting officer to testify about Defendant’s statements and the officer’s observations indicating Defendant’s impairment from drugs other than alcohol because the officer lacked sufficient training or expertise in drug impairment recognition and could not perform certain evaluations that a drug recognition expert could have. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any deficiencies in an officer’s training or expertise goes to the weight, but not the admissibility, of the officer’s testimony regarding observations of impairment; and (2) the trial court in this case did not err in admitting the arresting officer’s testimony regarding his observations and the results of the field sobriety tests, as the officer was qualified to testify as to his observations, that evidence was relevant to the OUI charge, and its admission was not otherwise barred.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.