Opinion ID: 1561769
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Blood Spatter Testimony

Text: Anderson further contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to make a specific objection to the expert testimony regarding blood spatter at the crime scene. At trial, Senior Crime Technician Farley Jake Caudill provided expert testimony on blood spatter evidence found at the scene; and he drew conclusions about the nature of the trauma that caused the spatter. Trial counsel objected to Caudill's testimony based on his qualifications, but following an extensive voir dire by both the State and the defense, the trial court overruled the objection and permitted the expert to testify. At the conclusion of his testimony, defense counsel asked the court to reconsider its acceptance of Caudill's testimony as expert testimony, but the court denied the motion. On direct appeal, Anderson asserted that the admission of Caudill's testimony was improper because it was of dubious probative value, completely speculative, and highly inflammatory. This Court concluded that the claim was procedurally barred because that specific objection was not raised at trial. Now, Anderson asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing to make that specific objection. We disagree. Even though we determined that the claim was procedurally barred on direct appeal, we examined the claim's merits and concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Caudill's testimony. Anderson, 863 So.2d at 179. We said: Even if Anderson's argument had been preserved, we would conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Caudill to testify. Caudill's testimony was relevant with regard to the State's theory on blunt force trauma. Moreover, Anderson's counsel rigorously cross-examined Caudill, and this cross-examination would have let the trier of fact assess the weight and credibility that should be attached to Caudill's opinion. Id. at 181 (footnote omitted). Additionally, even if counsel's failure to object constituted deficient performance, Anderson did not suffer prejudice, and our confidence in the outcome is not undermined. At best, Caudill's testimony provided some support to the State's theory that Anderson hit the victims with a blunt object after shooting them. This testimony provided some corroboration to the medical examiner's testimony that both victims sustained head injuries that were consistent with blunt trauma. In the absence of Caudill's testimony, the jury would still have been exposed to the overwhelming evidence of Anderson's guilt, including that before the victims suffered blunt trauma, Anderson fired ten shots from two revolvers, six of which required deliberate effort to fire. For these reasons, Anderson is not entitled to relief on this claim.