Oregon Appellate Court - April 17, 2013

Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.45(1) requires that issues appealable issues be preserved during trial. In this case, defendant objected to the state’s proffer of testimony regarding retrograde extrapolation of blood alcohol content on two grounds. First, that it is scientific evidence and therefore an expert should testify regarding the method, and second, that even if an expert testified it would be misleading to the jury. An expert testified and defendant was convicted. On appeal, defendant argues that the testimony was insufficient lay the proper foundation for introduction of scientific evidence. Because this argument is “qualitatively different” from those below, the court finds it was not preserved for review. [www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A144361.pdf ''State v. Montgomery''], 256 Or App ___ (Apr. 17, 2013).