☢ test - Í

satisfactorily shows that he had opportunity to observe, and did observe, the condition of another, may testify whether that person was under the influence of intoxicants and the extent thereof, stating the facts upon which the opinion is based.’ Lawrence v. State, 157 Ga.App. 264, 265 (277 S.E.2d 60) (1981). Here, the second officer testified as to the observations which led him to conclude that Wilson was under the influence and provided probable cause for arrest.” Bravo v. State, 304 Ga.App. 243, 696 S.E.2d 79 (May 28, 2010). Defendant’s DUI conviction reversed; trial court erred in allowing officer to testify to a specific blood alcohol content based on HGN testing without sufficient scientific evidence that HGN is reliable for use in that manner. While prior case law has settled that HGN is admissible “ as a basis upon which an officer can determine that a driver was impaired by alcohol ,” no case law supports admitting it as a basis for a specific BAC, nor does the evidence here support it. Officer here referenced certain NHTSA studies, but the studies themselves weren’t tendered; and officer’s “testimony that ‘to his knowledge’ the method was reliable in approximating BAC is simply insufficient.” Distinguishing Webb v. State , 277 Ga.App. 355, 626 S.E.2d 545 (January 24, 2006), which determined only the relevance of the evidence, specifically noting that the issue of the scientific validity of using HGN to assign a specific BAC level was not before the court. Still approves, however, past holdings “that field sobriety tests, including the HGN, are admissible to show that a detainee's BAC exceeds a particular impairing level. See, e.g., Kirkland (January 24, 2002), below (trial court did not err in admitting the arresting officer's opinion testimony that six of six clues on defendant's HGN test indicated a BAC of 0.10 grams or greater).” Karafiat v. State, 290 Ga.App. 15, 658 S.E.2d 801 (March 4, 2008). Officer’s testimony that defendant “had been DUI” “did not impermissibly invade the jury’s province. Lanning v. State, 261 Ga.App. 480, 482-483(3) (583 S.E.2d 160) (2003); Chance v. State, 193 Ga.App. 242(1) (387 S.E.2d 437) (1989).” “The officer stated the opinion after giving an extensive outline of his years of DUI training and experience and his observations of Karafiat.” McKay v. State, 264 Ga.App. 726, 592 S.E.2d 135 (November 26, 2003). “A lay witness may testify as to the intoxication of the defendant and the extent thereof where the witness states the reasons for his opinion and shows that she did observe the defendant. ” Baird v. State, 260 Ga.App. 661, 580 S.E.2d 650 (March 28, 2003). Defendant’s girlfriend testified that she didn’t think defendant was under the influence when he was charged with DUI. State sought to impeach her with her own guilty plea to DUI the prior year. Held, evidence of girlfriend’s DUI was properly allowed: “The right to a ‘thorough and sifting cross examination’ of a witness includes the right to impeach the witness by revealing possible biases or prejudices concerning issues in the case. Because [girlfriend] had offered her opinion that Baird was not under the influence of alcohol..., the State was entitled to explore her competence to assess whether a person is under the influence of alcohol.” Kirkland v. State, 253 Ga.App. 414, 559 S.E.2d 161 (January 24, 2002). Officer who conducted HGN test on Defendant testified at trial that Defendant exhibited all six clues indicating that he was intoxicated and that it was his opinion that generally when a person exhibits all six clues, that person’s blood alcohol concentration would likely be .10 grams or greater. Held, the officer’s testimony is admissible evidence because police officers may give opinion testimony regarding the state of sobriety of a DUI suspect and the officer here possessed the requisite learning and experience to testify as an expert as he was specially trained in the area of DUI detection, had conducted over 1,000 field sobriety evaluations, and had conducted approximately 700 breath tests using the Intoxilyzer 5000. Accord, Scott v. State , 332 Ga.App. 559, 774 S.E.2d 137 (June 18, 2015). Harding v. State, 242 Ga.App. 609, 530 S.E.2d 514 (March 6, 2000). A police officer may give opinion testimony as to the state of sobriety of a DUI suspect and whether the defendant was under the influence to the extent it made him less safe to drive. It is within the province of the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence offered. See also McKay (November 26, 2003), above. Kelly v. State, 242 Ga.App. 30, 528 S.E.2d 812 (January 21, 2000). DUI conviction affirmed; trial court properly allowed prosecutor to ask defense witness, who said defendant didn’t appear intoxicated on date in question, whether “she had ever seen Kelly intoxicated.” “As this Court recognized in Wood v. State, 218 Ga.App. 563, 564, 462 S.E.2d 625 (1995), … once a witness for the defendant testifies that the defendant did not appear impaired, the State is entitled to cross-examine that witness to determine the facts upon which the witness' observation was based, ‘including [her] observations of [Kelly's] consumption of alcohol on previous occasions.’ Id. ”