Opinion ID: 1058965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sergeant Major Mark Spicer

Text: In assignments of error 36, 37, and 62, Muhammad alleges that it was error for the trial court to permit the testimony of Sergeant Major Mark Spicer concerning the Commonwealth's sniper theory. Spicer's testimony came at a time in the trial proceedings when Muhammad was representing himself with the aid of standby counsel. Muhammad maintains that the Commonwealth did not identify Spicer as an expert witness pursuant to the requirements of a pretrial order. He further argues that the slides used as demonstrative aids in his presentation constituted reports subject to disclosure under the pretrial order. The pertinent part of the pretrial order required the Commonwealth's production of written reports of autopsies, ballistic tests, fingerprint analysis, handwriting analysis, blood, urine and breath tests and other written scientific reports and ... oral scientific reports that the Commonwealth intends to offer in its case in chief or that are exculpatory. In consideration of Muhammad's motion for a new trial, the trial court held that the pretrial order did not require disclosure of all experts. It only required the disclosure of scientific tests and results. Spicer's slides were not in the nature of scientific tests and results. Next, Muhammad asserts that Spicer's testimony was irrelevant and that he should not have been permitted to testify about Mr. Muhammad's background, military career, and other factors not in evidence. Upon review of the record, we hold that Muhammad did not make contemporaneous objections concerning these matters; consequently, they are not preserved for appeal and may not be considered. Rule 5:25. The trial court did not err in refusing to exclude Spicer from testifying or in refusing to grant Muhammad's motion for a new trial on these grounds.