Opinion ID: 1918766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred by allowing the defendants to use their accident reconstructionist as a hearsay conduit.

Text: ¶ 11. Trooper Cecelia Kazery of the Department of Public Safety testified for the defendants as an expert in the field of accident reconstruction. She was allowed to comment on a statement made by the driver of the car that hit Jeremy. Officer Kazery testified: [t]he child was alone and not visible, and the father was coming out hollering. And the driver told me that he was looking at the father, and it was making him look to the left as the child was coming from the right. The appellants argue that Officer Kazery's testimony, implicating Greg Jones' distraction of the driver as a cause of the accident, constitutes reversible error. They claim the expert was acting as a hearsay conduit. ¶ 12. Since Officer Kazery did not see the accident happen, the appellants contend her conclusions that the child was running across the parking lot and that the child was alone were hearsay. The driver of the car was available as a witness and the appellants submit it was error to allow the driver's testimony to be recounted by Officer Kazery. ¶ 13. The permissible bases of experts' opinions are provided for in Miss. R. Evid. 703: The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. Miss. R. Evid. 703. ¶ 14. The COA quotes Couch v. City of D'Iberville, 656 So.2d 146 (Miss.1995) for the proposition that [a]n accident reconstruction expert should be permitted to give his opinion on how an accident happened, the point of impact, the angle of travel, the responsibility of the parties involved, and the interpretation of photographs. Id. at 152 (emphasis added by COA). We agree with this proposition. ¶ 15. Assuming, arguendo, that the court's admission of Officer Kazery's testimony was error, we find it was harmless. There was abundant evidence from other witnesses to support the statements admitted. Greg Jones himself recalled that when he realized what was happening, he began waving his hands and screaming. It is impossible for the appellants to dispute that Jeremy was left alone while his father crossed the road to get change for the coin-operated truck. Therefore, the exclusion of this portion of Officer Kazery's testimony would have not affected the outcome of the trial.