Opinion ID: 2306632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Judge Properly Admitted the State's Expert Testimony.

Text: McNally argues that the State's ballistics expert did not provide a proper foundation for his testimony or explain how he derived his expert opinion. By admitting this expert's testimony, McNally contends the trial judge violated D.R.E. 702 and McNally's constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. Because McNally did not object to the expert's trial testimony, we review the trial judge's admission of the expert testimony for plain error. [13] A trial judge exercises discretion when deciding to admit expert testimony. [14] The trial judge is the gatekeeper for expert testimony and must assess whether the evidence is reliable and relevant. [15] A witness may testify as an expert when qualified as an expert and the trial judge determines that the witness has scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge that will assist the finder of fact in understanding evidence or in determining a fact at issue. [16] Even though an expert may be qualified to opine within a recognized `field,' that fact alone does not automatically guarantee reliable, and therefore admissible, testimony. [17] It is critical that a trial judge be satisfied that any generalized conclusions are applicable to the particular facts of the case. [18] Although preferable, a testifying expert does not need to recall each detail of how he applied his generalized conclusions to the particular facts of the case. [19] The State introduced Delaware State Police forensic firearms examiner, Carl Rone, to testify that all seven casings were shot from the same .45 caliber gun. The State proffered Rone as an expert based on his training and 20 years of experience in the ballistics field. Rone testified that he worked in the Delaware State Police Forensic Firearms Services Unit and personally examined the seven shell casings. Rone also testified about his relevant associations and publications. The trial judge permitted Rone to testify as a ballistics expert. The trial judge did not make an express finding on, and McNally did not object to, Rone's qualifications to testify. McNally takes issue with Rone's comment that the casings had similar markings without explaining how he came to that conclusion or what that conclusion means to this case. Rone's opinion was crucial because it linked the shell casings at the scene of the crime with the shell casings in McNally's aunt's SUV. Rone explained that, during testing, he looked at the casings microscopically at various points on the casings to compare the markings. He testified that he was 100% certain that the casings came from the same weapon. On cross examination, he could not remember which markings on the casings were compared in this case or how those markings were unique to the particular gun. The State claims that any lack of recall goes to the expert's testimony's weight and not its admissibility. The State argues that McNally could have explored the foundation of Rone's opinion through cross examination. McNally did ask Rone questions about the locations of the markings and the types of markings on cross examination. Rone answered those questions in terms of how he typically handles ballistics, because he could not remember the specifics of this case. McNally's cross examination exposed credibility issues with Rone's opinion.
McNally does not contest Rone's qualifications. Instead he argues that Rone neither divulged the facts upon which he relied nor applied his principles reliably to the facts of the case. To admit an expert's testimony, the trial judge must comply with D.R.E. 702, which states: If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. [20] D.R.E. 702 requires the proffered testimony to provide relevant and reliable principles and methodology. [21] This rule does not require that the conclusions derived from those principles and methods be scientifically valid. [22] When the expert's application of his principles and methodology to the facts is challenged, the trial judge must determine that the expert has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline. [23] Rone explained the principles and methods that he uses when testing casings for identifiable markings. He explained that when he tested the casings in this case he found similar markings that led him to conclude that the casings came from the same gun. Obviously it would have been more persuasive if Rone could recall how he arrived at his conclusion that the markings were similar, but we require the principles and methodsnot the conclusions to be scientifically valid. [24] Thus, we cannot find plain error because Rone did explain his principles and methodology and applied those principles and methods to the facts. McNally was able to cross examine Rone on those principles and his methodology. McNally was also able to expose Rone's lack of recollection about the application of the methodology to the facts here.
McNally is entitled to an opportunity to effectively confront witnesses against him. He is not entitled to helpful or effective confrontation. [25] Satisfying his right to confrontation, McNally had a full and fair opportunity to probe and expose [the testimony's] infirmities through cross-examination, thereby calling to the attention of the factfinder the reasons for giving scant weight to the witness' testimony. [26] Rone's inability to recall the basis of his opinion went to the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony. [27] It was for the jury to assess Rone's credibility. [28] Because McNally had the opportunity to cross examine Rone we must find that the trial judge did not commit plain error by admitting Rone's testimony.