Opinion ID: 4583224
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Expert Opinion and Relevance

Text: [¶25] We review “a court’s foundational finding that expert testimony is sufficiently reliable for clear error” and its ultimate decision on the admissibility of expert opinion testimony for an abuse of discretion. State v. Maine, 2017 ME 25, ¶ 16, 155 A.3d 871 (quotation marks omitted). Maine Rule of Evidence 702 provides: “A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if such testimony will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” To be admissible under Rule 702, expert testimony must be relevant and must “assist the trier of fact in 11 understanding the evidence or determining a fact at issue.” State v. Burbank, 2019 ME 37, ¶ 8, 204 A.3d 851 (quotation marks omitted). [¶26] Expert testimony is relevant if the proponent, among other requirements, “has presented a sufficient demonstration of reliability.” Id. Common indicia of reliability include “whether an expert’s conclusion has been tailored to the facts of the case,” “whether any other experts attest to the reliability of the testimony,” and “the nature of the expert’s qualifications.” Maine, 2017 ME 25, ¶ 17, 155 A.3d 871. [¶27] Investigator Morrill testified in great detail about his specialized training and experience in shooting reconstruction, trajectory analysis, and bloodstain pattern analysis. He then testified as to his opinion of how the shooting may have occurred and thoroughly explained what he did at the scene and the basis for his opinion. His conclusions were drawn from the facts of this case, and his work was peer-reviewed by longstanding experts in the field. See id. On this record, we conclude that the court did not clearly err in finding that Investigator Morrill’s qualifications in shooting reconstruction were sufficient for him to testify on the matter and that his testimony was sufficiently reliable and would be helpful to the jury “to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” M.R. Evid. 702. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in 12 admitting Investigator Morrill’s testimony after finding it reliable. See Maine, 2017 ME 25, ¶¶ 16-17, 155 A.3d 871. Finally, there can be no doubt that Investigator Morrill’s opinion was relevant. M.R. Evid. 401.