Opinion ID: 1117896
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in allowing expert testimony as to the position of the gunman and the victim.

Text: ¶ 24. At trial, Dr. Steven Hayne, forensic pathologist, was questioned by the State whether the gunshot wound was a distant gunshot wound or a contact wound and where the shot had originated. The defense argues on appeal that Jones's counsel objected to Dr. Hayne's testimony. However, the record reveals the contrary, and the trial court was never presented an objection on which to rule. The following transpired: State: And I guess that you have some [wounds] that are contact wounds and some that are distant? Hayne: Some are near contact. In this case all I was saying is that it's  the distance from the end of the muzzle to the entrance gunshot wound, the back of the decedent was at least two and a half feet or could be considerably greater than that. Defense: Is it your intention to offer that? State: Yes. Defense: After having conferred with the defendant, we have no objection to the introduction. We will note though, isn't it marked, Ron, not to scale? Is it marked to scale? State: I will say that this drawing is not to scale for the record. Defense: With that stipulation  State: It's a correct drawing but it is not drawn to scale. State: Doctor Hayne, could you step down here, please, if it's all right with the Court? Court: Yes, sir. State: And I'll let you look at this photograph. By the way, since it's no objection, Your Honor, I would offer this drawing into evidence at this time. Court: Be marked and received into evidence. Defense: With the stipulation that it's not to scale. State: Right. It has down on the bottom not to scale. Court: Be marked and received. State: You see something up at the top here, Doctor Hayne, it says front of residence. And then you have an arrow saying carport, and then you have another arrow pointing to a laundry room. As you look down towards the bottom of this picture you see an area across a road which is designated as Highway 533. And then down at the bottom you have an area pointing over here. It says, area where beer cans were found. Now, looking over here I ask you to look where these arrows are where it says, area where the beer cans are found, and the laundry room here in the back of the garage. And if you look from where these beer cans were found up here to the laundry room, could you tell me, in your expert opinion, whether or not the gunshot wound to Deloris Knight would be consistent with someone shooting from the area of the beer cans and hitting her while she is in the garage? Defense: May it please the Court, I'm not sure that his area of expertise goes to that. We did stipulate as an expert. I'm not going to object to it. I'm going to go ahead and let him answer. Court: All right. You may answer. Hayne: If the decedent were facing in this direction towards the carport, the angle would be approximately 20 degrees coming up and it would be consistent with having [been] struck by a buckshot fired in this area coming up at 20 degrees facing towards the carport. (Emphasis added). ¶ 25. Based on the record, the defense did not object to Dr. Hayne's testimony, stating let him answer. Therefore, the trial court did not have a contemporaneous objection by Jones to consider. `[I]f no contemporaneous objection is made, the error, if any, is waived.' Walker v. State, 671 So.2d 581, 597 (Miss.1995) (quoting Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1270 (Miss.1994)); see also Rubenstein v. State, 941 So.2d 735, 751 (Miss.2006). Failure to make a contemporaneous objection waives an issue for purposes of appeal. Spicer v. State, 921 So.2d 292, 305 (Miss.2006) (citing Williams v. State, 684 So.2d 1179, 1203 (Miss.1996)). ¶ 26. Accordingly, Jones's failure to object at trial waived this claim of error on appeal.