Opinion ID: 2313338
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Expert's Role Unfamiliar

Text: As additional support for his second claim, Hudson also contends that Detective Skinner should not have testified as an expert witness because he had never before served in that capacity and was unfamiliar with the role of an expert witness, as reflected by the following exchange during voir dire: [Defense counsel]: I understand, sir, from your statement to the judge, that you have never testified as an expert witness previously? [Skinner]: That's correct. [Defense counsel]: And do you understand, sir, the ramifications of testifying as an expert witness? [Skinner]: Somewhat, yes. [...] Basically you're making a decision on whether or not someone was possessing with the intent to deliver a drug or just simply possessing it. [Defense counsel]: Do you ..., because of the words you used, ... feel that you are going to be making the decision for the jury? [...] [Skinner]: Yes[.] [...] The State acknowledges that Detective Skinner was not familiar with the law of expert testimony. Nonetheless, the State argues that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing Detective Skinner to testify as an expert witness. [8] The exchange quoted above occurred during voir dire, which was conducted outside the presence of the jury. At the conclusion of the voir dire, the trial judge took a fifteen-minute recess to allow the State to explain to Detective Skinner his role as an expert witness and the appropriate manner in which to present his expert opinion. Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 states that a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of opinion or otherwise, if three specific requirements are met. None of those requirements call for the expert to be familiar with the law of expert testimony or require him or her to be able to recite that law during voir dire. Therefore, we conclude Hudson's argument that Detective Skinner was not qualified to testify as an expert witness, because he is not familiar with the law of expert testimony, is without merit.