Based on State v. Meador, 674 So.2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) the State's testimony of Field Sobriety Exercises is limited to lay witness testimony, as Meador held the following:
- The witness’s testimony concerning the field should sobriety exercise should be limited to the witnesses simply describing their observations.1
- Testimony concerning terms like “test”, “pass”, “fail”, or score the field sobriety exercises, as they give them the aura of scientific validity. As a result the field sobriety exercises should not be referred to as field a field sobriety test.2
- The Defendant would request to exclude evidence of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (HGN). HGN is a scientific test, which the State cannot lay the Predicate for. See Meadors. Further no witness has been listed as an expert witness qualified to give an opinion about the HGN test.
1 The likelihood of unfair prejudice does not outweigh the probative value as long as the witnesses simply describe their observations. See Wuornos v. State, 644 So.2d 1000, 1007 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1705, 131 L.Ed.2d 566 (1995).↩
2 Reference to the exercises by using terms such as "test," "pass," "fail," or "points," however, creates a potential for enhancing the significance of the observations in relationship to the ultimate determination of impairment, as such terms give these layperson observations an aura of scientific validity. Accord State v. Beach, ___ Fla.L.Weekly Supp. ___ (Fla.Palm Beach Cty.Ct. May ___, 1995); State v. Cargile, ___ Fla.L.Weekly Supp. ___ (Fla.Palm Beach Cty.Ct. Apr. 27, 1995); State v. Anthony, ___ Fla.L.Weekly Supp. ___ (Fla.Palm Beach Cty.Ct. Apr. 5, 1995); Biederwolf. Contra State v. Adams, 3 Fla.L.Weekly Supp. 66 (Fla.Palm Beach Cty.Ct. Mar. 15, 1995). Therefore, such terms should be avoided to minimize the danger that the jury will attach greater significance to the results of the field sobriety exercises than to other lay observations of impairment.↩
