Opinion ID: 1223959
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Blood Spatter Witness

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court erred in permitting, over objection, a Phoenix Police Department detective, who is also a forensic artist and reconstructionist, to testify as an expert. At trial, defendant argued that the detective did not have sufficient background to testify as a blood spatter expert and that his opinion was not supported by adequate foundation. He further argued that the probative value of the detective's testimony was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. This court has previously ruled on the use of experts: Under Rules [of Evidence] 702, 703, and 403, expert testimony must (1) come from a qualified expert, (2) be reliable, (3) aid the triers of fact in evaluating and understanding matters not within their common experience, and (4) have probative value that outweighs its prejudicial effect. State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 378, 380-81, 728 P.2d 248, 250-51 (1986) (citing State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 291, 660 P.2d 1208, 1218 (1983)); see State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 304, 896 P.2d 830, 844 (1995). A witness may be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Ariz. R. Evid. 702. Whether a witness possesses sufficient qualifications to testify as an expert is a matter within the trial court's discretion and that determination will not be upset on appeal in the absence of clear abuse. State v. Saez, 173 Ariz. 624, 630, 845 P.2d 1119, 1125 (App.1992) (citing State v. Dixon, 153 Ariz. 151, 155, 735 P.2d 761, 765 (1987)); see also State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 276, 921 P.2d 655, 679 (1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1091, 137 L.Ed.2d 224 (1997). a. Qualifications. At trial, the detective testified that he had the following training and qualifications: twenty one years of service with the Phoenix Police Department, fifteen as a homicide detective; training in ballistics and reconstruction of human remains; basic and advanced homicide courses; an eighty-hour course at the FBI Forensic Art School in Quantico, Virginia; a thirty-hour course in composite art; and thirty two hours in introductory and advanced blood spatter courses. The blood spatter courses were taught by a nationally recognized blood spatter expert whom the trial judge had qualified on two prior occasions. Defendant claims the detective's blood spatter training was insufficient because (1) the training activities involved mannequins and animal blood instead of actual crime scenes and (2) the detective attended only thirty two hours of formal training. Our research reveals no Arizona appellate cases that establish qualifications for blood spatter expert witnesses. This court has found, however, that a detective's experience was sufficient to qualify him as an expert in footprint comparison where his background included extensive tracking in criminal investigations, qualifying in both federal and state courts as an expert, training from an experienced Department of Public Safety Officer, teaching classes in tracking and footprint comparison, determinations of matches on hundreds of occasions, and reading articles. State v. Murray, 184 Ariz. 9, 29, 906 P.2d 542, 562 (1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2535, 135 L.Ed.2d 1057, and cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 193, 136 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996). Detective Hodges had perhaps slightly less experience but more formal training than did the detective in Murray. After consideration, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the detective qualified as a blood spatter expert. b. Reliability. Defendant claims the detective's testimony was not reliable because it contradicted that of the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy. The medical examiner described the shoulder injury as a shrapnel wound, and the detective suggested that the injury was caused by some type of snake shot or shot shell. The trial court asked the detective whether his opinion on the cause of the shoulder injury differed from that of the medical examiner. The detective replied that his opinion differed in a very precise definition of shrapnel. The medical examiner described multiple tears or cuts in the skin surfaces, some of which had metal in them at the time of autopsy. The detective found the small metal fragments to be characteristic of a snake-shot type load in possibly a hand gun or long rifle. On consideration, we conclude that the two interpretations are not contradictory. A photographic exhibit clearly illustrated to the jury how the shrapnel injury appeared. Defendant also argues the detective contradicted the medical examiner regarding the sequence and trajectories of the shots. The medical examiner testified that he did not attempt to attribute a sequence to the shots and that he did not go to the crime scene. Thus, the medical examiner's testimony is consistent with the detective's testimony on this point as well. c. Aid to the Jury. The detective's testimony aided the jurors in synthesizing crime scene evidence with autopsy evidence. His testimony helped the jurors understand the likely sequence of the shots and the locations of the victim and gunman during the shooting. This information was directly relevant to determining premeditation. d. Weighing of Probative Value and Prejudicial Effect. Defendant claims the state's real purpose in calling the detective to testify was to show the gruesomeness of the murder. Our review of the record reveals that the detective's testimony itself did not use inflammatory language, nor did it focus on the gruesomeness of the murder. The testimony was relevant in determining premeditation and was not cumulative because the detective was the only expert who analyzed the victim's bullet wounds in the context of the crime scene. We therefore find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the detective to testify as an expert.