State Of Louisiana v. Melanie Barnett Curtin
State Of Louisiana v. Melanie Barnett Curtin, No. 2026 KW 0351 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. Mar. 16, 2026).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Edwards 750 So. 2d 893
- 377 So. 3d 250 not in our corpus
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2026 KW 0351
VERSUS
MELANIE CURTIN MARCH 16, 2026
In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 21st
Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston, No.
40759.
BEFORE: McCLENDON, C.d., GREENE AND STROMBERG, JJ.
STAY LIFTED.
WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The decision to
accept or reject a witness as an expert lies within the great
discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned unless
that discretion was abused. State v. Edwards, 97-1797 (La.
7/2/99), 750 So.2d 893, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026, 120 S.Ct.
542, 145 L.Ed.2d 421 (1999). Tf scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand
the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified
as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or
otherwise. See La. Code Evid. art. 702. Expert testimony, while
not limited to matters of science, art or skill, cannot invade the
field of common knowledge, experience, and education of men. State
v. Bishop, 2023-0221 (La. App. Ist Cir. 10/18/23), 377 So.3d 250,
254. Dr. Patricia Williams has been qualified as an expert in the
field of toxicology. While we agree that Dr. Williams may not
opine as to whether the victim or the defendant were intoxicated
at the time of the incident in question, it is permissible for Dr.
Williams to provide general testimony regarding how an intoxicated
person may appear, act, or behave. Under the particular facts of
this case, this evidence is relevant to assist the trier of
fact. Accordingly, the district court’s ruling excluding Dr.
Williams’s testimony is reversed to the extent it excluded general
testimony regarding how an intoxicated person may appear, act, or
behave, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. In
all other respects, the writ application is denied.
PMc
HG
TPS
OURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
\
Lu de AD ono
“PUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT