Opinion ID: 2222257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Improper Inferences Based on Blood on Shirt

Text: Roman Nose next contends that the prosecutor improperly told the jury that it could infer from the spots of blood all over [Roman Nose's] shirt that he killed Stuedemann. Citing to State v. Moore, Roman Nose contends that blood spatter interpretation must be based on expert testimony. 458 N.W.2d 90, 97 (Minn.1990). In Moore, we recognized blood splatter analysis as a scientific technique. Id. We also noted that blood splatter analysis is a simple way for crime scene investigators to determine the position of a victim's body by the placement and formation of the blood splatters at the time the wound was inflicted. Id. at 98. The prosecutor here, however, was not engaging in blood splatter analysis to prove the position of Stuedemann's body. Instead, the prosecutor was attempting to refute Roman Nose's testimony that he had merely wiped his hands on his shirt. The average juror, through experience and common sense and without expert testimony, could determine that the presence of spots of blood on the shirt is not consistent with Roman Nose's testimony that he wiped his bloody hands on his shirt. We, therefore, conclude that the prosecutor's comments do not constitute blood splatter analysis for which expert testimony is required. Accordingly, we conclude that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by his comments.