Opinion ID: 1556500
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The trial court abused its discretion when it found Dr. Katz's testimony irrelevant.

Text: ¶ 36. As the majority notes, the standard of review for the admission or exclusion of expert testimony is abuse of discretion. Taylor v. State, 954 So.2d 944, 948-49 (Miss.2007) (citing Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31, 34 (Miss.2003)). It was an abuse of discretion to exclude Dr. Katz's testimony about migraines because testimony was offered that Tammy had a migraine on the evening of the alleged assault, and therefore, expert testimony regarding the effects of migraines would have been relevant.
¶ 37. During direct examination of Tammy, she testified that she had suffered from a migraine on the evening of September 6, 2005  the evening of the alleged assault. She explained: I had had it [i.e., a headache] all afternoon and it just got worse as the night went on. While we [i.e., Jennifer and I] were riding around [in the car doing errands] it got really bad. And by the time we got home, I asked her [i.e., Jennifer] for something to take to make it feel better. So she gave me  I don't know what it was. It was probably Tylenol or an Excedrin or something. But I took that and for the rest of the night it just got worse and worse and worse. ... [S]he and I both had migraines in the past and I knew she would have something to take for it, because I didn't bring anything with me. ¶ 38. Further, when Tammy was asked during direct examination what type of medication she would normally take if a migraine came on, she explained that she would normally take Darvocet, a drug legally obtained only by prescription. In other words, a medical professional at some point must have diagnosed Tammy with a migraine condition before prescribing her the drug Darvocet. ¶ 39. Moreover, when Tammy was asked during cross-examination whether she was suffering from a migraine headache the evening of the alleged assault, she replied, Yes, sir. She went on to explain that she had been diagnosed with a migraine condition, that it was common for her to get migraines, and that she had suffered from them since she was in high school. ¶ 40. In addition, when Abernathy's counsel asked on cross-examination, Previously or earlier in that same evening when you were having symptoms from the migraine, did that include nausea  and vomiting and so forth? Tammy responded Yes, sir. ¶ 41. Jennifer and Justin testified that during the evening in question, Tammy referred to her headache as a migraine. Further, Jennifer testified: ... [Tammy] did get sick from her migraine and she threw up and I knew she had migraines.... ¶ 42. Lastly, in the State's Disclosure of Trial Witnesses, which was provided during discovery, the State informed Abernathy that [Tammy] will testify that on the evening of September 6, 2005, that she was suffering from a migraine headache and was feeling very ill. In other words, even the State (which now argues that it is questionable that Tammy had a migraine that evening) at one time asserted that Tammy did in fact suffer from a migraine that evening. ¶ 43. In sum, Tammy's friends testified that Tammy had told them on the evening of the alleged assault that she was suffering from a migraine; Tammy, as well as her friends, testified that Tammy had a very bad headache that evening and that she also had vomited; Tammy herself testified that she had suffered from a migraine that evening; Tammy testified that her doctor had diagnosed her with migraine headaches and that she had suffered from them since high school; Tammy testified that she had been prescribed Darvocet for her migraine condition; and lastly, Tammy told the prosecutors that she had a migraine that evening, and they informed Abernathy that this fact would be a part of Tammy's testimony.
¶ 44. In light of the testimony regarding Tammy's history of migraine headaches and her symptoms during the evening of the alleged assault, Dr. Katz's testimony about migraines and how they may impair sufferers' ability to recall events accurately was relevant. Rule 401 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence explains that evidence is relevant when it has a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action [e.g., the fact that Tammy accurately recalled the events of the evening in question] more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Miss. R. Evid. 401. See also Investor Res. Servs., Inc. v. Cato, 15 So.3d 412, 417 (Miss.2009) (Rule 401 favors admission of the evidence if it has any probative value. `[T]he threshold for admissibility of relevant evidence is not great. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to prove a consequential fact.' (internal citation omitted)). In addition, Rule 702 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence provides that [i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.... Miss. R. Evid. 702. ¶ 45. Dr. Katz's testimony would have assisted the jury in understanding what bearing Tammy having a migraine that evening had on the case, and in determining whether Tammy's recollection of that evening's events had been impaired. The ability of a witness  not to mention the prosecution's key witness  to observe and recollect the assault about which she is testifying is of utmost relevance. ¶ 46. Relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Miss. R. Evid. 403. As discussed above, the testimony introduced at trial regarding Tammy's history of migraines and her symptoms during the evening of the alleged assault makes the probative value of Dr. Katz's testimony significant. Second, the only danger (of those dangers listed in Rule 403) that the State raised during discussions of the admissibility of Dr. Katz's testimony was the danger of confusion of the jury. While Dr. Katz's testimony likely would have caused the jurors to consider the possibility that Tammy's ability to observe or recollect that evening's events was impaired, it would not have confused the jurors, and it certainly would not have confused them to the extent that the confusion would have outweighed the probative value. Furthermore, the State would have had the opportunity during cross-examination of Dr. Katz to attack the weight and worth of his testimony. ¶ 47. Even the trial court seemed to agree that when a victim testifies that she had a migraine on the date and time of an alleged assault, expert testimony regarding migraines and their effects on those who suffer from them would be relevant. At the hearing regarding Abernathy's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Notwithstanding the Jury Verdict or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial, which occurred nearly six months after the trial, the trial court heard arguments regarding the relevance of Dr. Katz's testimony, and in closing remarks stated: If I remember correctly, I think the lady testified that she had a headache, but it was not a migraine headache, that she had them before. And if she didn't have a migraine headache, then Dr. Katz's testimony was not necessary. It was not relevant. If she had testified that she had them, experienced a migraine headache that night, then you've got a whole different situation. She didn't testify to that. That was something that the defendant brought to the court's attention, and since he was drunk, I don't know he knew that she had a migraine headache. So, the motion is denied. (Emphasis added.) Again, Tammy did testify that she had a migraine the evening of the alleged assault; the trial court did not correctly recall Tammy's testimony. At trial, the trial court itself noted that Tammy had testified that she had a headache and that she used the term migraine to describe it. Thus, but for the trial court's erroneous recollection that Tammy had testified that she did not have a migraine on the evening in question, it appears the trial court would have found Dr. Katz's testimony relevant. ¶ 48. It is true that the trial court, earlier in the proceeding, found Dr. Katz's testimony irrelevant on other grounds  those grounds being, namely: 1) no testimony of a medical nature was offered that would classify Tammy's condition on the evening in question as a migraine, and 2) Dr. Katz would not be testifying to the effects that migraines have on Tammy specifically, but rather to the effects migraines have, generally, on people who suffer from them. As just noted, however, in the trial court's final remarks on the issue of Dr. Katz's testimony, it agreed that when a victim testifies that she had a migraine on the date and time of an alleged assault, expert testimony regarding the effects of migraines would be relevant.
¶ 49. A defendant has a fundamental right to have every lawful defense he asserts presented to the jury, even if that defense is highly unlikely. See Chinn v. State, 958 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Miss.2007) (... every accused has a fundamental right to have [his] theory of the case presented to a jury, even if the evidence is minimal.); Phillipson v. State, 943 So.2d 670, 671-72 (Miss.2006) (We greatly value the right of a defendant to present his theory of the case....); O'Bryant v. State, 530 So.2d 129, 133 (Miss.1988) (It is, of course, an absolute right of an accused to have every lawful defense he asserts, even though based upon meager evidence and highly unlikely, to be submitted as a factual issue to be determined by the jury under proper instruction of the court. This Court will never permit an accused to be denied this fundamental right.). According to Abernathy's brief, his theory of defense was first, that he did not commit the acts of which he stood accused, and second, the stated fact that the victim was suffering from a migraine headache and possibly enceinte at the time was material and crucial to the matter of the victim's accurate recollection of the events, among other things, that transpired that evening. Abernathy thus had a right to call Dr. Katz in support of his theory that the migraine headache Tammy had the evening of the alleged assault may have caused her to recollect inaccurately what happened between the two of them.