Opinion ID: 1654062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Counsel failed to pose a specific objection to pain testimony by Dr. Hayne.

Text: ¶ 52. Dr. Stephen Hayne, a forensic pathologist, testified as to whether certain of Linda Hillman's wounds would have been painful and/or lethal. Defense counsel objected to the first such question, but did not give a specific ground, and then objected to some but not all of the ensuing questions of this nature, apparently on the ground that Dr. Hayne lacked personal knowledge to answer such a question. The objections were overruled. The issue was not raised on direct appeal. ¶ 53. Davis now alleges that Shaddock was ineffective for failure to raise a specific objection, either on the ground of lack of personal knowledge or that Dr. Hayne's expertise as a forensic pathologist did not include testimony on pain. Davis cites Jones v. State, 678 So.2d 707 (Miss.1996), where this Court found that a social worker's opinion as to how a child could have ingested cocaine was improper due to lack of expertise or personal knowledge. In response the State cites Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307, 341 (Miss.1997), where this Court stated: Discussion of pain by a forensic pathologist is admissible. Our caselaw has allowed forensic evidence to prove that a victim suffered a fatal heart attack as a result of trauma and stress induced by a beating and robbery. This issue is without merit.