Olano Sanchez v. State
In a DUI prosecution, the Third DCA held that a police officer who served as the Intoxilyzer's agency inspector testified as a lay fact witness—not an undisclosed expert—when he explained the machine's maintenance, calibration, and inspection history and authenticated related records. Because there was no discovery violation, the trial court was not required to conduct a Richardson hearing, and the conviction was affirmed.
Key facts
- Defendant was prosecuted for DUI; the trial court allowed a police officer who served as the Intoxilyzer's agency inspector to testify about the machine's maintenance, calibration, inspection history, and authentication of related records without designating him as an expert in discovery.
- The defendant argued the officer's testimony constituted undisclosed expert opinion, requiring a Richardson hearing to determine whether to exclude the testimony or grant a continuance for expert disclosure.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion gives DUI practitioners a useful template for analyzing whether an Intoxilyzer maintenance/inspection witness must be disclosed as an expert, distinguishing personal-experience-based factual testimony from… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.