Opinion ID: 1771774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 31

Heading: whether dr. michael west should have been allowed to testify as an expert in the field of wound patterns?

Text: ś 56. Puckett argues that the trial court err in accepting Dr. Michael West as an expert in wound pattern analysis because Dr. West did not meet the Polk standards as established in Polk v. State, 612 So.2d 381 (Miss.1992). Specifically, Puckett points out that Dr. West was not properly qualified as a wound pattern expert for the following reasons: (1) Dr. West failed to establish that there is a general acceptance of wound pattern analysis in the scientific community; (2) there is no certification for a wound pattern expert; (3) there are no techniques which are generally acceptable to produce reliable results in the field of wound pattern analysis; and (4) there are no techniques which could produce results at the level of reasonable medical probability or certainty. In contention, the State points out that Puckett's reliance on Polk is misguided since that decision specifically dealt with the use of expert testimony regarding DNA evidence. This Court agrees with the State's position regarding Polk. ś 57. The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 702 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. If 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. This Court reviews the trial court's decision to allow expert testimony under the well-known clearly erroneous standard. The admission of expert testimony is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Roberts v. Grafe Auto Co., 701 So.2d 1093, 1098 (Miss.1997). Unless we conclude that the discretion was arbitrary and clearly erroneous, amounting to an abuse of discretion, that decision will stand. Id. ( citing Seal v. Miller, 605 So.2d 240, 243 (Miss.1992); Hooten v. State, 492 So.2d 948, 950-51 (Miss.1986)). ś 58. In Sample v. State, 643 So.2d 524, 529-30 (Miss.1994), this Court espoused a bright line rule regarding the difference between lay opinion under Miss. R. Evid. 701 and expert opinion testimony under Miss. R. Evid. 702. That is, where, in order to express the opinion, the witness must possess some experience or expertise beyond that of the average, randomly selected adult, it is a Miss. R. Evid. 702 opinion and not a Rule 701 opinion. Id. (citations omitted). In other words, [t]he test is whether a witness `possesses peculiar knowledge or information regarding the relevant subject matter which is not likely to be possessed by a layman.' May v. State, 524 So.2d 957, 963 (Miss. 1988). ś 59. Additionally, this Court discussed at length the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702 in Hall v. State, 611 So.2d 915 (Miss.1992). As in the case at bar, the defendant in Hall argued that the State's witnesses could not be qualified as experts because there is no field in which they are qualified. Id. at 919. In Hall, the trial court found the State's witnesses to be experts on child abuse. Id. After delineating each witness's qualifications, this Court found that the State's witnesses were properly qualified as expert witnesses in the field of child abuse. Id. Based on this record, they were qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education to assist the trier of fact and [a]s experts, they could testify as to commons symptoms and behavior which are consistent with sexual abuse. Id. (emphasis added). ś 60. In the case at bar, Dr. Michael West offered the following qualifications as predicate to his expert testimony in the field of wound patterns. He is a practicing general dentist and has served for three (3) years as the elected coroner of Forrest County, Mississippi. Upon graduation from University of Southern Mississippi, he attended and graduated from the LSU School of Dentistry. Thereafter, he entered the United States Air Force where he performed duties as a forensic dental officer, which primarily involved the identification of downed flight personnel. He also received training in forensics at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bethesda, Maryland. For twelve years, he has been a board certified Forensic Odontologist, which involves representing dental interests for the law usually in the form of dental identification, bite marks, third party liability, and malpractice. He is a member of the American Board of Forensic Odontology, the American Society of Forensic Odontology, the Mississippi Coroners Association, Mississippi Law Enforcement Association and the Association of Professional Investigative Photographers. He has been conducting death investigations for 19 years. Since 1990, Dr. West has analyzed wound patterns and pattern injuries on about 250 occasions. Additionally, Dr. West has conducted research in the manufacture of wound patterns. He has delivered approximately 24 presentations on the subject of wound patterns or patterned injuries. He has published over 25 articles on wound pattern photography and analysis. He has been accepted as an expert on wound pattern analysis in six or seven states, including Mississippi, and has testified or rendered an opinion on wound patterns or pattern injuries over sixteen (16) times. ś 61. After the prosecution laid the proper predicate and defense counsel conducted extensive voir dire, the trial judge accepted Dr. West as an expert in the field of wound patterns. Dr. West testified that he was present at the autopsy performed on the victim, Rhonda Griffis, that he took the photographs and did the wound pattern analysis in this case. Dr. West also testified that he examined the defendant's body and photographed any marks or injuries that he had upon his arrest two days following Rhonda's murder. Dr. West testified the wounds on Puckett were consistent with the type of wounds which would be inflicted by State's Exhibit No. 3, the club which was found outside the Griffis' trailer. He also testified the blows inflicted on the victim were consistent with State's Exhibit No. 3. Based on the record in the case at bar, and in accordance with this Court's previous holdings, the Court should find that the trial judge properly qualified Dr. West as an expert witness in the field of wound patterns. Because of Dr. West's knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education, he possessed peculiar knowledge or information regarding wound patterns which is not likely to be possessed by a layman. Furthermore, as an expert, Dr. West was properly allowed to testify that the victim's wounds and the wounds discovered on Puckett's shoulder were consistent with State's Exhibit No. 3. ś 62. It is interesting to note that the pathologist, Dr. Steven Hayne, also testified that the victim's wounds were consistent with State's Exhibit No. 3 without objection. Furthermore, Puckett himself testified that State's Exhibit No. 3 was the murder weapon, only that David Griffis was the one who used it to beat his wife to death. Puckett also admitted being hit by David with that very same stick. Consequently, even if it had been error to allow Dr. West to testify as a wound pattern expert, his testimony could not have been prejudicial and harmful as Puckett himself confirmed everything Dr. West stated during his own testimony. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in allowing Dr. West to testify as an expert in the field of wound patterns.