State v. Threlkeld

“[A]n expert on a given subject is a person who ‘has acquired certain habits of judgment based on experience of special observation that enable[] him or her to draw from the facts inferences that are uniquely beneficial to the [factfinder].” Mall v. Horton, 292 OR App 319, 324, 423 P3d 730, rev den, 363 Or 744 (2018).

Defendant appealed his conviction of carrying a concealed weapon (a dagger). Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s for admitting arresting officer testimony as “expert testimony.” The defendant that the officer lacked qualifications to be an expert, and, the record does not establish the officer to have the “knowledge of the expect.” The State contended an expert was not needed to testify about the purpose of the knife as it’s the use could be inferred from “its inherent nature.” “[A]n expert on a given subject is a person who ‘has acquired certain habits of judgment based on experience of special observation that enable[] him or her to draw from the facts inferences that are uniquely beneficial to the [factfinder].” Mall v. Horton, 292 OR App 319, 324, 423 P3d 730, rev den, 363 Or 744 (2018). The Court found that the officer’s testimony was an important factor used by the trial court to determine if the knife was a dagger, and, due to the court’s reliance, the error is not harmless. Reversed and Remanded.