Opinion ID: 1355168
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cartridge Casings

Text: Appellant argues that he was substantially prejudiced when the trial court allowed Lt. Mitch Bailey to testify that the two cartridge casings found in Appellant's residence were too close together to have been normally fired and ejected from the .45 caliber pistol Appellant used. This testimony provided the basis for the Commonwealth's Attorney's argument that the casings had been planted in the residence and that the shooting actually occurred in the driveway, thereby undercutting Appellant's protection against burglary defense. Appellant asserts that Lt. Bailey was not qualified to testify as an expert and could not testify as to his lay opinion because he had no personal knowledge of the pistol's ejection pattern because it had not been tested. The Appellant also asserts that he preserved this issue by contemporaneously objecting to Lt. Bailey's testimony. Lt. Bailey testified that he had found the empty cartridges in Appellant's home and that they were only two and a half to three inches apart. He also testified that he had been on the Kentucky State Police for sixteen years, that he had been trained in the use of firearms, and that he used firearms on a regular basis. He and the Commonwealth's Attorney then engaged in the following exchange: Commonwealth's Attorney: Are you familiar with a semi-automatic weapon and how it would eject a shell after being fired? Lt. Bailey: Yes. Commonwealth's Attorney: And based on the location of those shell casings, was that consistent with the firing of a semi-automatic weapon two consecutive times and the ejection of those two shell casings? LB: I found it to be odd that they would be there together, yes. Commonwealth's Attorney: And why is that? LB: Based on what I've seen at the firing range and based on my experiences as a detective for five years and the number of shooting incidents, they're generally scattered a little bit further apart from each other from a number of feet to a number of yards. I just found it odd. Commonwealth's Attorney: Did you say it would be unlikely that a weapon would eject two shell casings that would land that close to each other? Mr. Thomas: Objection, calls for speculation. Judge: Overrule your objection. Commonwealth's Attorney: Do you say it's unlikely? LB: I would find it unlikely, yes. Before Lt. Bailey testified the jury heard similar testimony from Detective Underwood, i.e., that he had weapons training and that he was familiar with firearms. The Commonwealth's Attorney introduced into evidence photographs that Det. Underwood had taken of the location of the shell casings inside Appellant's home. Det. Underwood and the Commonwealth's Attorney then engaged in a series of questions and answers similar to those with Lt. Bailey: Commonwealth's Attorney: Now, you stated Detective Underwood, that you are familiar with the way a semi-automatic weapon would eject a shell when it's fired. Were there shell casings, the location of them found, in such a way or in such a manner that would indicate that they were fired from a weapon consecutively and ejected and landed in that position? DU: I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be hard to, most of the time you don't see shell casings laying in the same proximity because most of the time they, in a semi-automatic pistol, when it's fired, especially an automatic, will eject the  when it ejects, it ejects out to the right and upward and back. You know it could have possibly hit the wall and fell down there and been close, but not likely to have happened. Most of the time what we have we look for shell casings, they are usually found several feet apart. You know, they're not located most in the same area. They never, like standing over a firing range firing, it will eject the shell casings, if you sit there and pull the trigger and keep pulling the trigger, the shell casings won't fall close to each other, it just kicks them out. Commonwealth's Attorney: And the jury will be able to look at that photograph here but to give them an idea, how close were those shell casings found to each other? DU: About three inches apart. Commonwealth's Attorney: Three inches apart? DU: Three or four inches. Commonwealth's Attorney: Based on  now Mr. Mondie told you where he contended he was standing when he fired the weapon, is that right? DU: Yes. Commonwealth's Attorney: Is it likely that that's where those shell casings landed given where he said that he was standing? DU: In my opinion, it's not likely, no. On cross-examination, Det. Underwood testified as follows: Mr. Thomas: Det. Underwood, has that firearm ever been sent to the lab? Det. Underwood: No, it wasn't. Mr. Thomas: So, it hasn't been tested for ejection patterns or anything like that, where it throws shells. DU: No. We didn't send it to the lab. There was no dispute about what gun was used, so there was no need really to send it to the lab at that time. Mr. Thomas: Would you agree that if you had asked for it, they could have fired the weapon and got an angle of ejection and an average length of ejection and stuff for that particular firearm? DU: Yes, they could have. Mr. Thomas: So the testimony you gave earlier, that's just based on your experience with other firearms on the range, not from your experience with that firearm. DU: Correct. Mr. Thomas: Would you agree, I think there was a photograph circulating around here, I think you may have indicated it might have bounced off the wall? DU: Yes, it could have. While defense counsel did object to Lt. Bailey's testimony as a lay witness, he did not object to the failure to qualify Lt. Bailey as an expert on ejection patterns and did not request a Daubert [25] hearing, nor was there any objection to Det. Underwood's similar testimony. Ordinarily, this matter would be resolved by the fact that the error was not preserved. However, as the case is being remanded, further comment is warranted. Speculation by a lay witness is not helpful to the jury, [26] but [t]he degree to which a witness may give an opinion, of course, is predicated in part upon whether and the extent to which the witness has sufficient life experiences that would permit making a judgment as to the matter involved. [27] On the other hand, in order to testify as an expert, a witness [must be] qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education. [28] Opinions as to ejection patterns are indeed expert evidence under KRE 702, i.e., general truths derived from specialized experience, [29] as they involve technical information learned through specialized experience or training that would help the jury interpret the facts of the case. Testimony on how cartridge casings are ejected from a particular semi-automatic weapon would allow the jury to draw conclusions about the proximity of the casings that they would otherwise be unable to make. And the officers in this case went even further because their testimony as to the unlikeness of the ejection pattern found in Appellant's home provided the conclusions for the jury. Although such testimony is expert evidence, a trial court is not required to hold a Daubert hearing before the testimony is admitted. [30] However, [e]ssential fairness in a trial requires that the trial court carefully scrutinize the qualifications and the testimony of the officer before permitting his opinion testimony to be submitted to a jury [31] because expert opinion based on speculation rather than reasoned analysis and judgment is of no assistance to triers of fact. [32] As Det. Underwood's testimony revealed, not all firearms have the same ejection pattern, some are erratic while others are consistent, and even the surface the cartridge cases land on ... may have great bearing on the pattern displayed. [33] Both officers stated that they were testifying from their experience on the firing range and on crime scenes and not from their experience with that specific .45 or any other .45 caliber pistol. We decline to speculate on the outcome of an unrequested Daubert hearing or to hold that failure to conduct such a hearing sua sponte constitutes palpable error. [34] However, without more, as the record stands, the officers' qualifications are insufficient to allow them to testify on retrial as to the ejection pattern of Appellant's .45 caliber pistol.