Opinion ID: 1781968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: the testimony of the state's pathology witness was improper and resulted in an unfair trial for defendant in violation of mississippi law and the united states constitution.

Text: We next consider Foster's argument that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the State's expert witness to testify to his opinion of the distance from which the fatal gunshot was fired. Dr. Ricky Hicks was certified as an expert witness for the State in the field of pathology. During direct examination, the State asked Dr. Hicks if he had an opinion regarding the distance from which the shot that killed the victim was fired. Foster objected on the ground that Doctor Hicks has been made an expert in the pathology not ballistics  . The trial court overruled the objection and Dr. Hicks testified as follows: Well I  I can't, uh,  it's an intermediate distance, but, uh, from my training and research from what I know and have read about, uh, it should have been  it was greater than two feet. The  the shot was fired greater than two feet away from the wound. This Court in May v. State, 524 So.2d 957 (1988), set forth the standard to be used in determining whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert. In that case, the appellant complained that a forensic pathologist should not have been allowed to state his opinion that the fatal wound was not a close contact wound because he lacked ballistics training. The lower court reviewed the witnesses' credentials and found he was qualified to testify concerning the proximity of the firearm to the wound. This Court agreed, stating: Generally, ... the decision of whether or not an expert witness is qualified to testify is within the trial court's discretion. See Detroit Marine Engineering v. McRee, 510 So.2d 462, 467 (Miss. 1987); Hooten v. State, 492 So.2d 948 (Miss. 1986). The test is whether a witness possesses peculiar knowledge or information regarding the relevant subject matter which is not likely to be possessed by a layman. McRee, 510 So.2d at 467; Henry v. State, 484 So.2d 1012, 1015 (Miss. 1986). Id. May v. State at 963. Foster asserts that because Dr. Hicks stated on cross-examination that he had no formal training in firearms or ballistics, that he was testifying outside his area of expertise when he stated his opinion that the fatal shot was fired from more than two feet away from the wound. The record indicates that prior to performing an autopsy on George Shelton, Dr. Hicks had two years of experience in the field of pathology following his residency. Although he stated he had no formal training in forensic pathology, he had studied the subject in general during his residency and in preparation for the board examination in pathology. Further, the doctor had attended three or four conferences on forensic pathology and had personally completed approximately 8 to 10 autopsies involving gunshot wounds. Prior to stating his opinion on the distance from which the shot was fired in the case sub judice, Dr. Hicks testified that his autopsy revealed a lack of an abrasion ring, black soot or stippling around the wound, all of which are indicative of a shot fired from close range. On cross-examination, Dr. Hicks explained his opinion was a generalization based on his training and experience with gunshot wounds. Based on his studies, he disagreed that the gun could have been only twelve inches away from the victim when fired. On redirect, Dr. Hicks further testified, based on his training and experience, that the absolute minimum distance from which a shot could have been fired without leaving any abrasions or stippling would be eighteen to twenty-four inches. Applying the test set forth in May, we find the trial court committed no error in allowing Dr. Hicks to give his opinion on the distance from which the fatal shot was fired. The doctor's testimony relating the absence of evidence consistent with a close contact wound and his opinion, based on experience and study, of this particular wound, was not simple conjecture, but was certainly sufficiently outside the common experience to be the subject of a `helpful' expert opinion. May v. State, 524 So.2d at 964. This assignment is rejected as being without merit.