Opinion ID: 2110800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Tire Evidence

Text: The defendant further contends that the State's evidence establishing that the tire impressions left at the crime scene could have been made by defendant's car was impermissible hearsay. The State's expert opinion evidence established that the right front tire on the defendant's car was a Cooper Falls Persuader. State Police forensic scientist David Brundage formulated his opinion by comparing the tire impression casts with the tire industry's manual Tire Guide which contained photographs of all brands of tires available on the market. In his investigation, he also contacted 110 tire manufacturers to determine the percentage of tires on the road today having the same characteristics as the one that made the impression. Mark Thomas, the director of mold operations at the Cooper Tire Company, also testified for the State and concluded that the impression cast was that of a Falls Persuader or a Dean Polaris tire. Defendant claims that the introduction of such evidence violated his constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses under the sixth amendment. Defendant claims that Officer Brundage's testimony based upon the manual Tire Guide was hearsay. Defendant's claim is meritless and must fall. There is no question that an expert may base his opinion on firsthand observation of facts or data. ( Wilson v. Clark (1981), 84 Ill.2d 186, 49 Ill.Dec. 308, 417 N.E.2d 1322; Skalon v. Manning, Maxwell, & Moore, Inc. (1970), 127 Ill.App.2d 145, 262 N.E.2d 146.) Officer Brundage's opinion, formulated by comparing the plaster cast with the tire manual, undoubtedly falls within this category of admissible expert testimony. Defendant also argues that Thomas' testimony was hearsay because he based his conclusion that the tire impressions left at the crime scene could only have been made by two models of a single manufacturer upon the research of a subordinate. Specifically, defendant objects to the following testimony elicited at trial: Q. Were you able to determine whether any other tire manufacturer in America wouldwould manufacture a tire that could leave an impression such as that in exhibit 105? A. I had one of my people research that. Spent quite a few hours reviewing our drawings at Cooper as well as design guide books   . Went back a number of years looking for similar products that could have made this and his response was that he didn't find anything else. In reply, the State cites this court's opinion in Wilson v. Clark (1981), 84 Ill.2d 186, 49 Ill.Dec. 308, 417 N.E.2d 1322, in support of its contention that Thomas' reference to the opinion of the subordinate was not hearsay. In Wilson, this court adopted Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and held that an expert witness may base his or her opinion on information which has not been admitted into evidence so long as that information is reliable and is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in that field. The defendant correctly points out that Rule 703 does not create an exception to the hearsay rule. ( City of Chicago v. Anthony (1990), 136 Ill.2d 169, 185, 144 Ill. Dec. 93, 554 N.E.2d 1381.) This fact, however, is of no avail to the defendant, as defendant misapprehends the nature of the testimony. The testimony by Thomas is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and therefore cannot be hearsay. Rather, the statement was admitted for the limited purpose of explaining the basis of his opinion. ( People v. Anderson (1986), 113 Ill.2d 1, 12, 99 Ill.Dec. 104, 495 N.E.2d 485.) Thus, no error was committed in admitting Thomas' expert testimony.