Opinion ID: 1924405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Admission of Dr. Cox's Expert Testimony

Text: The defendant's final point of appeal is his contention that the trial justice abused his discretion when he permitted the emergency room doctor to testify as to the trajectory of the bullet that struck Koch. Stone argues that Dr. Cox had no demonstrated expertise in the science of ballistics. At trial, the state established, inter alia, that Dr. Cox, who was board certified in emergency medicine, had treated approximately 1,000 gunshot wounds, including 100 to the head and neck area. The state inquired of the witness, based upon your observation, your experience, is there any way you would be able to determine the angle of which that entrance wound would have entered and exited? Before Dr. Cox could respond, defendant objected, arguing that unless he has got some experience in the penetration of skin with projectiles the testimony should be excluded. The trial justice overruled defendant's objection and permitted the witness to answer. The admission of expert testimony in Rhode Island is governed by Rule 702 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence which provides that [i]f 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 fact or opinion. The decision to permit a witness to testify as an expert is within the trial justice's sound discretion and rests upon such factors as the witness's education, training, employment, or prior experiences. State v. Villani, 491 A.2d 976, 978-79 (R.I.1985). After careful review of the record in this case, we are satisfied that the trial justice properly allowed this expert opinion evidence. In the context of this case and based on his training and experience in having treated over 1,000 gunshot wounds, Dr. Cox was qualified to give an opinion about the trajectory of the bullet in the context of the facts of this case. Furthermore, even if the admission of this testimony was erroneous, the error would be harmless based on the overwhelming evidence of Stone's guilt, including eyewitness testimony. See State v. Garcia, 883 A.2d 1131, 1140 (R.I.2005) (holding that [w]hen uncontradicted and admissible trial evidence clearly establishes that the defendant has committed the crime, the introduction of inadmissible, cumulative evidence is harmless error).