State v. Bowman

Summary

The court held that an officer's testimony comparing alcohol-impaired vision to a baby's vision was inadmissible hearsay because the officer was not qualified to testify about infant eye function and was repeating an out-of-court assertion for its truth. The error was not harmless because the testimony supported a central impairment theory, had unusual persuasive force, and was emphasized in closing argument. The court reversed the appellate decision and the circuit court judgment and remanded for further proceedings.