Opinion ID: 865185
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Obtain Expert Assistance.

Text: ¶9. With regard to the claim that counsel failed to obtain expert assistance, [t]his Court weighs on a case by case basis whether the denial of expert assistance for an accused is prejudicial to the assurance of a fair trial and will grant relief only where the accused demonstrates that the trial court's abuse of discretion is so egregious as to deny him due process and where his trial was thereby rendered fundamentally unfair. Weatherspoon v. State, 732 So.2d 158, 160 (Miss. 1999). issue; and any relief sought under this article upon said facts but upon different state or federal legal theories shall be procedurally barred absent a showing of cause and actual prejudice. (3) The doctrine of res judicata shall apply to all issues, both factual and legal, decided at trial and on direct appeal. (4) The term cause as used in this section shall be defined and limited to those cases where the legal foundation upon which the claim for relief is based could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of trial or direct appeal. (5) The term actual prejudice as used in this section shall be defined and limited to those errors which would have actually adversely affected the ultimate outcome of the conviction or sentence. (6) The burden is upon the prisoner to allege in his motion such facts as are necessary to demonstrate that his claims are not procedurally barred under this section. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21. 6 ¶10. The State called Dr. Stephen Hayne, a forensic pathologist, who testified that Lafferty suffered defensive wounds on both arms as well as her right leg. Powers now contends that trial counsel was ineffective for not countering that testimony with an expert of his own. Powers offers the affidavit of a forensic dentist, Dr. Michael Bowers, who asserts that the positioning of the victim’s body was “staged” by the perpetrator for some reason other than attempted rape. According to his affidavit, Dr. Bowers is a dentist with a private practice in Ventura, California. He is also a licensed attorney in California, a Board Forensic Odontologist and a certified senior crime scene analyst. Likewise, Dr. Bowers has been the Deputy Medical Examiner for the Ventura County Coroner’s Office since 1988. He has also testified as an expert in the field of forensic dentistry in several states and additionally, he has published articles and textbooks on forensic dental evidence. Dr. Bowers stated via his affidavit that he had reviewed the entire testimony of various law enforcement officials and Dr. Hayne relating to this case, that he had reviewed the crime scene video and autopsy video, and, that he had studied Mississippi’s “attempt” statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 97-1-7 (Rev. 2000). In his affidavit, Dr. Bowers likewise stated: 4. The forensic testimony in this case is silent regarding any post mortem proof of attempted rape inflicted on or in the murder victim. 5. The crime scene photos and video presented to the court in this case does not present sufficient or convincing forensic evidence to support the charge of attempted rape in the commission of a murder. 6. The location and positioning of the body are strong signs that the positioning was “staged” for reasons other than attempted rape. The positioning of the legs and panties are surely shocking, even to experienced investigators but the perpetrator’s intent is open to multiple interpretations. The absence of autopsy 7 findings of sexual activity on or in the decedent’s body clearly makes the State’s theory of “attempted rape” only a hypothesis which can’t be tested scientifically. The alternative intent of the perpetrator such as “staging” exists is an equally viable explanation. 7. The lack of physical findings regarding an attempt to rape makes the positioning of the body as just seen in the photographs insufficient to determine with medical certainty that an attempted rape was committed. ¶11. As to expert testimony, we now apply the Daubert test. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). In Jones v. State, 918 So.2d 1220, 1226-27 (Miss. 2005), in addressing the issue of admissibility of expert testimony, we stated, inter alia: Our current [Miss. R. Evid.] Rule 702, which is now identical to Fed. R. Evid. 702, states: 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, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. The comment to this amended rule clearly reveals this Court’s effort to address the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Thus, after years of applying the Frye standard on the issue of the admissibility of expert testimony, we now apply the Daubert standard. See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 892 So.2d 203, 210 (Miss. 2004) (fn 1); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So.2d 31, 60 (Miss. 2004); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So.2d 1092, 1103 (Miss. 2004) (Graves, J., specially concurring); Mississippi Transp. Com’n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31, 35-40 (Miss. 2003); McGowen v. State, 859 So.2d 320, 340-41 (Miss. 2003). 8 In McLemore, we acknowledged that under the Frye standard: “[I]t is not necessary that one offering to testify as an expert be infallible or possess the highest degree of skill; it is sufficient if that person possesses peculiar knowledge or information regarding the relevant subject matter which is not likely to be possessed by a layman.” 863 So.2d at 36 (citing Kansas City S. Ry. v. Johnson, 798 So.2d 374, 382 (Miss. 2001) (quoting Hooten v. State, 492 So.2d 948 (Miss. 1986)). Jones, 918 So.2d at 1226-27. ¶12. In applying Daubert to the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case sub judice, such a conclusion by Dr. Bowers that the positioning of Lafferty’s body was somehow “staged” is speculative at best, and such testimony does not counter the State’s evidence by way of Dr. Hayne, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy, who testified that the victim suffered defensive wounds. It is highly doubtful that any expert testimony regarding the positioning of the body would have likely resulted in a different verdict. After all, the victim was found nude from the waist down with her shorts and underwear bunched at one ankle, as well as with five gunshot wounds to her head. ¶13. Having found this issue to be procedurally barred, we likewise now find, alternatively, upon a discussion of this issue, that this issue has no merit.