Mr. Betskoff raises two questions on appeal. He asks us to review his unpreserved objection to the jury instructions for “plain error” and contends that the circuit court erred in admitting the results of the field sobriety test.
1. Did the court abuse its discretion by qualifying a police officer as an expert in CDS identification, packaging, and sales when the officer had undergone no special training in that field and had never testified before as an expert? 2. Did the court plainly err by instructing the jury on “believable doubt” rather than reasonable doubt?
Is a defendant entitled, upon request, to an instruction expressly informing the jury that the State has the burden of proving each element of every charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt and did the lower court err in refusing to give the requested instruction?
1. Does the docket correctly reflect the sentence the court pronounced? 2. Did the trial court commit plain error in describing the pattern instruction on reasonable doubt as “circular?”