Does a narcotics officer that testifies to what he saw/smelled/seized in conjuction with his background knowledge make him and "expert" for designation and discovery purposes? I have a defense attorney who has requested notice as to experts and is contending that my lead narc officer on this case will be testifying as an expert based on his knowledge as to meth labs and what was seized that night. I have not designated him as an expert, and trial is tomorrow and she's trying to exclude his testimony. Thanks for the quick help. Jeff

An officer who is testifying on the basis of what he observed is generally not an expert. He is merely someone with specific knowledge. Anyone who walked around meth labs and smelled them could form the same observations.

Sort of in the nature of a lay witness with special knowledge. (If an individual smelled marihuana and came to court and testified the stuff in the baggie smells like marihuana, would that make him a dope expert?)

Having said all that, it is generally a good idea to designate everyone as an expert and thereby avoid the trickery being used by the defense attorney to avoid having the jury hear evidence he otherwise knows they will hear.

Osbourn V. State, 92 SW3rd 531, Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 18, 2002

John and DJC, thanks for the quick responses. That was a good site. Another case I found says that an officer with 7 years experience can testify as a lay that a guy with 12 grams of crack standing in a parking lot with $200 in small bills can testify that "he's selling crack." Do you think there is a difference between that and my case: anhyrous ammonia, meth in coffee filter, noxious fumes that create a haze in the house, lots of colored baggies, a vat in the attic that has PVC piping connected to a Craftsman filter before escaping the roof, lots of lithium batteries, etc; where I want the lead narc to say, "I think that was an operational meth lab." I don't see a difference...provided I prove up the officer's experience and training.

I've done exactly that numerous times with an experienced narc. I would go ahead and prove up your narc as an expert, though, because you're going to want the jury to believe that he knows what he's talking about anyway and proving him up as an expert really isn't that difficult.