Opinion ID: 2102287
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Pretrial Ruling Excluding Police Officer as Expert Witness

Text: Seward further contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to violate a pretrial order excluding expert testimony. On May 15, 1997, five days before trial, during a calendar conference, the State produced, for the first time, a medical examiner's report stating that the substance taken from Collins was crack cocaine. During that conference, the State also stated that it intended to present expert testimony from Officer Berna regarding his knowledge of drugs. Because the request to qualify the officer as an expert was not timely under Superior Court Criminal Rule 16 [19] , the trial court ruled that Officer Berna would not be permitted to testify as an expert. At trial, Officer Berna testified about his police background and both Officers Berna and DiGirolomo were permitted to testify that the substance they saw looked like crack cocaine. [20] The State argued in closing arguments that Officer Berna had seen crack cocaine before so he knew that the substance in question was crack cocaine. The trial court rejected Seward's request for a curative instruction on this issue. This Court reviews evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. [21] If we determine that the Superior Court abused its discretion, the next inquiry is whether the error rises to the level of significant prejudice which acted to deny Seward a fair trial. [22] Although the Superior Court incorrectly allowed the officers to testify as to their opinions, there is no substantial prejudice which denied Seward a fair trial and the other properly admitted evidence, taken alone, is sufficient to support his convictions. Under the Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence (D.R.E.) 701, a lay witness may only express an opinion when the perception of the witness can not be communicated accurately and fully without expressing it in terms of an opinion and when the opinion does not require special knowledge, skill, experience or training. [23] An expert is permitted to give an opinion and is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education. [24] During the trial, Officer Berna was permitted to testify that the substance passed between Seward and Collins looked like smashed up pieces of crack cocaine. The trial court overruled Seward's objection and found that a police officer could testify what cocaine looked like because it was in the common knowledge of a police officer and did not rise to the level of expert testimony. Because, however, under the circumstances of this case, what the officers perceived could have been communicated accurately and fully by describing the substance, it was improper to allow the officers to express their opinion that the substance was crack cocaine. [25] At oral argument in this Court, the State conceded that the officer's testimony identifying the substance as crack cocaine was not within the common knowledge of a lay person and therefore the officer improperly testified as an expert. [26] We must, therefore, determine if the trial court's error in permitting the officers to testify as to their opinion that the substance looked like crack cocaine rises to the level of significant prejudice and acted to deny Seward a fair trial. [27] We find that it does not. Officer Berna testified that what he saw passed between Collins and Seward, looked like crack cocaine. Officer Berna then described the substance as small white rocks, very small, like a pebble. Later, Officer Berna testified that he observed Collins hand a female an object that appeared to be crack cocaine. Seward's attorney immediately objected, and the court overruled the objection and stated to the jury: I want to make sure the jury understands that this evidence is not proved it was crack cocaine. It is simply the officer's testimony as to based on his experience what he thought it was. I think that has got to be made clear, and I think the ultimate decision as to what it was is up to the jury based on all the evidence you hear in this case, but I believe the police officer is entitled to testify as to what he thinks the substance is and the jury will make the determination. Later, the court, sua sponte, instructed the jury to disregard Officer Berna's testimony referring to the substance as crack cocaine. The court instructed the jury [t]hat is something to be proved as far as any substance goes by analysis by the medical examiner and advised the State to instruct Officer Berna not to refer to the substance as crack cocaine but to describe what it looked like. Therefore, even if it was error for the court to have allowed Officer Berna to give his opinion of what the substance looked like, there was no substantial prejudice to Seward. Officer DiGirolomo's opinion that the substance looked like crack cocaine was limited to the substance seized from Collins that was identified by the medical examiner's office as cocaine and admitted as evidence at trial. Although it was improper for him to give his opinion that the substance looked like crack cocaine, his testimony clearly did not prejudice Seward. When that substance was placed before the jury to see, it had already been tested and found to be cocaine. The Superior Court specifically stated that it was up to the jury to determine what the substance was. The jury was permitted to see what the substance looked liked that was taken from Collins and Collins admitted that he was in possession of crack cocaine when he was arrested and that he intended to sell it. Collins also testified that Seward had nothing to do with his selling the crack cocaine and admitted that he had given Seward money on August 9, but stated that it was in repayment for a loan. The jury was free to determine Collins' credibility and reject all or part of his testimony. [28] Even if the officers had not been permitted to testify about their opinion of what the substance was, Officer Berna described the substance he saw being passed from Seward to Collins and from Collins to the purchasers. That description matched the description of the substance found on Collins. The substance found on Collins was chemically tested and proved to be crack cocaine. Even without the officers' opinions of what they believed the substance to be, the evidence is sufficient to support Seward's conviction. [29] Therefore, any error was harmless and Seward was not substantially prejudiced and denied a fair trial. [30]