Opinion ID: 1625947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Accidentologist

Text: Scarborough  the accidentologist [4]  is a trooper with the Mississippi Highway Patrol. Scarborough is a college graduate and a graduate of the Mississippi Law Enforcement Officer's Training Academy. He attended the Traffic Institute at Northwestern University for seven weeks. This course involved determining time and distance of vehicular movement, determining speeds, stopping distances, acceleration rates and similar motions. Scarborough initially testified regarding times, velocities and distances but then he began testifying regarding reaction times and similar physiological/psychological concepts. [5] At this juncture, after appropriate objection, the testimony of Scarborough, other than regarding times and velocities and distances, was excluded. Both Byrd and Smith objected to this ruling. Byrd objected to the limitation on his expert, Smith objected to the jury having heard Byrd's expert on the subject of reactions (even though the testimony was excluded) without his being able to cross-examine him. After this exclusion of part of Scarborough's prior testimony, Scarborough went on to testify for 31 pages regarding time, velocity and distance. There is no proffer in the record by Byrd as to what else Scarborough would have testified to and Byrd in his appellate brief speaks only in very general terms about a limitation on his expert. There is no way of knowing what Byrd intended to elicit from Scarborough that the jury did not in fact hear  assuming there was anything at all. See Dazet v. Bass, 254 So.2d 183, 187 (Miss. 1971) (adequate proffer is necessary). It would appear that Scarborough is hardly an expert in the area of human physical reactions. His only training in this was received with the Mississippi Highway Patrol through reading books and articles and apparently some hands-on experience  though what this experience consisted of was not articulated. The determination of whether a witness possesses the required degree of specialized knowledge to qualify as an expert witness is one that, if the witness' credentials are challenged, must be made before the expert is allowed to give an opinion. This competency determination necessarily rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Parmes v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 440 So.2d 261, 267 (Miss. 1983); House v. State, 445 So.2d 815, 822 (Miss. 1984). There is no evidence that the trial judge abused his discretion in this matter. The assignment of error is denied.