Opinion
Argued January 7, 1998
Decided February 11, 1998
Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.).
At defendant's trial there was evidence that defendant was pulled over by a police officer after the officer noticed that defendant made an abrupt turn without signaling until halfway through the turn; that when the officer approached defendant's vehicle, he noticed an odor of alcohol and asked defendant if he had been drinking alcoholic beverages; that defendant admitted to consuming alcohol; that defendant failed field sobriety tests administered by the officer; and that defendant was eventually charged with driving while intoxicated, giving an improper signal, and refusing to take a breath screening test.
At defendant's trial, defendant sought to introduce the testimony of his wife that defendant used the prescription medication Prozac and that she had observed defendant's conduct after ingesting such medication. The trial court refused to permit such testimony, ruling that expert medical testimony would be required before such evidence could be received.
On appeal, defendant maintained that he was improperly denied his right to be present at material stages of his trial by not participating in several conferences, that the trial court erred in ruling that the prosecution could cross-examine defendant concerning prior convictions for traffic violations, and that the trial court committed reversible error in not permitting the proffered Prozac testimony.
County Court concluded, inter alia, that the trial court's ruling on the proffered Prozac testimony was proper since the testimony involved a conclusion which was beyond the ken of the average fact finder, and that the complexity of the issue concerning the effect of the drug Prozac on the conduct of an individual dictates the necessity of expert testimony.
Garry Stephen Hanlon, Rochester, for appellant.
Howard R. Relin, District Attorney of Monroe County, Rochester ( Wendy Evans Lehmann of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of County Court should be affirmed.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the proffered lay testimony of defendant's wife concerning the alleged effects of the drug Prozac upon defendant ( see, People v Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430, 433).
Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK and WESLEY concur.
Order affirmed in memorandum.