Case Name: James L. HOOTEN v. STATE of Mississippi
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1986-05-07
Citations: 492 So. 2d 948
Docket Number: No. 55563
Parties: James L. HOOTEN v. STATE of Mississippi.
Judges: Before PATTERSON, C.J., and DAN M. LEE and SULLIVAN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 492
Pages: 948–958

Head Matter:
James L. HOOTEN v. STATE of Mississippi.
No. 55563.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
May 7, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 27, 1986.
Merrida P. Coxwell, Jr., Stanfield, Car-mody, Coxwell & Creel, Jackson, for appellant.
Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Leyser, Q. Morris, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C.J., and DAN M. LEE and SULLIVAN, JJ.

Opinion:
PATTERSON, Chief Justice,
for the Court:
This is an appeal from James L. Hooten's second conviction of murder by a jury in September, 1983. We reversed and remanded Hooten's first conviction in Hooten v. State, 427 So.2d 1388 (Miss.1983).
The facts surrounding the murder of Reuben Wood are reported in our previous opinion cited above, and need not be restated here. For purposes of this appeal, we focus on the fact that a legal writing pad was found near Reuben Wood's body when he was discovered on the morning of November 4, 1977.
The State sought to place Hooten at the scene of the crime by proving the legal pad found next to the body had Hooten's handwriting on it. To support their theory the State produced a special agent with the FBI assigned to the document section of the federal laboratory. He came to the conclusion the legal pad contained Hooten's handwriting.
To rebut this testimony, defense counsel called Marie B. Hill to testify as an expert in handwriting analysis. After a thorough voir dire on her qualifications, the trial court determined she lacked the educational background to testify in an expert capacity. Defense counsel proffered her testimony, and the record reveals Mrs. Hill came to the opposite conclusion. As a result of this exclusion, the State's evidence establishing Hooten's presence at Reuben Wood's trailer was uncontradicted.
We are of the opinion the refusal of the trial court to allow Mrs. Hill to testify as an expert was error.
This issue has heretofore been decided by this Court. In Henry v. State, 484 So.2d 1012 (Miss.1986), we reiterated our well established rules regarding expert witnesses, and stated, "It is not necessary that one offering to testify as an expert be infallible or possess the highest degree of skill; it is sufficient if that person possesses peculiar knowledge or information regarding the relevant subject matter which is not likely to be possessed by a layman. (Cites omitted.)" 484 So.2d at 1015.
In this case, as in the Henry case, Mrs. Hill's testimony was the only challenge to the State's expert placing Hooten at the scene of the crime. Her practical experience in the examination of questioned documents, and frequent court appearances to testify in similar cases places her clearly within the ambit of our rules regarding experts. We emphasize that in situations such as this, attacks on the expert's qualifications and methods are better directed toward the weight of the testimony than its admissibility. Henry v. State, supra.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.
WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.