- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Evidence
- Date Filed: 09-09-2021
- Case #: A172263
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Kamins, J. for the Court; James, P.J.; & Kistler, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed the conviction of carrying a concealed dagger. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s decision to admit expert testimony that affected the verdict. Defendant argued that the officer who testified about the concealed knife was not qualified as an expert. The State argued that the officer’s testimony does not amount to expert testimony because the characteristics of the knife can be inferred from its inherent nature. A witness is qualified as an expert when the witness has developed superior knowledge based on experience, and the competency of the expert must be assessed in relation to the specific subject about which the expert is asked. The Court held that the officer was not qualified as an expert. The Court reasoned that the officer’s experience with knives was primarily related to defensive tactics when exposed to knives rather than identifying different types of knives. As such the officer could not be qualified as an expert to determine that the knife found on the defendant was a dagger. Reversed.