Opinion ID: 1281673
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of the State's Medical Examiner

Text: The first issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly allowed the state medical examiner, Dr. Frost, to testify that Rosenberger's manner of death [2] was a homicide. Scott argues that by using the word homicide, the testimony of Dr. Frost was an opinion on an ultimate issue at trial whether the death of Brandon Rosenberger was due to an accident or due to murder. Dr. Frost's testimony was not objected to during the course of the trial. However, Scott argues that although the testimony of Dr. Frost was not objected to, his testimony constitutes plain error that requires the conviction to be overturned. We have held that [t]o trigger application of the `plain error' doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Syllabus Point 7, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995). We have further explained this doctrine and held that: An unpreserved error is deemed plain and affects substantial rights only if the reviewing court finds the lower court skewed the fundamental fairness or basic integrity of the proceedings in some major respect. In clear terms, the plain error rule should be exercised only to avoid a miscarriage of justice. The discretionary authority of this Court invoked by lesser errors should be exercised sparingly and should be reserved for the correction of those few errors that seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Syllabus Point 7, State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 470 S.E.2d 613 (1996). In a plain error analysis, we first must determine whether the testimony of Dr. Frost, standing alone, would constitute error if admitted into evidence. Dr. Frost testified in relevant part, as follows: Q. [by the State] Ultimately, Dr. Frost, what did you determine the cause of death to be? A. Gunshot wound to the head. Q. And is part of your determination in addition to cause of death, manner of death? A. Yes, it is. Q. Explain to the jury what the difference is between those two areas? A. The cause of death is the injury or the disease process that causes someone's death. The manner of death is an opinion that deals with the circumstances under which death occurs. We have five manners of death; natural, accident, suicide, homicide and when you can't for all the investigation and all your determinations conclude whether it's one of the previous four, you use the category of undetermined. Which in most, many medical examiner coroners' offices is perhaps one or two percent of all your cases. Q. Now, you've said that the cause of death in your determination was the gunshot wound, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you have an opinion as to the manner of death in this case? A. Yes. Q. What was that opinion as you expressed it in your report? A. Manner of death is homicide. ... Q. [by the defense] Now, by stating that the manner of death was homicide, that doesn't rule out some type of accidental shooting by a second person, does it? A. The information I had didn't seem to indicate that this was accidental. ... A. I don't make the differentiations between the varying degrees of manslaughter, voluntary, involuntary which is a legal matter when I have a wound that was fatal and fired from a distance and another person purposely pulled the trigger to fire that shot. Q. Okay. And whenever you say you don't make the differentiation, that's a legal conclusion as to whether it would first degree manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter or something else? A. That's right. That's your realm, not mine. Q. You're not able to sit here today and tell us which of those degrees would apply to the facts of this case, are you? A. No, that is not my work. That is not my experience. That is not my training. Scott contends that Dr. Frost's testimony was error in that it improperly invaded the province of the jury in that the testimony was on the ultimate issue, and was not sufficiently probative so as to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence and determine a fact at issue. Scott contends that Dr. Frost's testimony basically instructed the jury on what conclusion to reach. Scott relies on State v. Clark, 171 W.Va. 74, 297 S.E.2d 849 (1982), for the proposition that a state medical examiner may not testify that homicide was the manner of death in a case where the defendant's state of mind is at issue. [3] We note that Clark was decided prior to our 1985 adoption of Rule 704 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. Rule 704 provides that testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. Additionally, this Court stated in State v. Smith, 178 W.Va. 104, 358 S.E.2d 188 (1987), that with the adoption of Rule 704, Clark would not be controlling on the issue of an expert's ability to testify that homicide was the manner of death. [4] Scott's reliance on Clark is, consequently, misplaced. [5] Nevertheless, Scott argues that the use of the term homicide by Dr. Frost was misleading to the jury and that his testimony stripped Scott of his defense that the shooting was an accident. Homicide is the killing of one human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.1990). Homicide is not, in and of itself, a crime. [Homicide] is a necessary ingredient of the crimes of murder and manslaughter, but there are other cases in which homicide may be committed without criminal intent and without criminal consequences.... The term homicide is neutral; while it describes the act, it pronounces no judgment on its moral or legal quality. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.1990). Because the term homicide is neutral and pronounces no judgment, we do not find that Dr. Frost testifying that Brandon Rosenberger's manner of death was homicide removed any defense available to Scott. In fact, Dr. Frost testified that his opinion was not a legal conclusionthat he was neither trained nor qualified to render a legal conclusion concerning Brandon Rosenberger's death. We do not find in the instant case that the circuit court committed an error in permitting Dr. Frost to testify that Rosenberger's manner of death was homicide; therefore, we need not go further with the Miller analysis to determine the effect such testimony may have had in the trial. [6]