Opinion ID: 1155936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Admission of Prosecution Evidence (1) Concerning Result Of Toxicologist Test As Found by Appellant's Expert, (2) From Witnesses Concerning Perceived Personality Changes Observed In Deceased, and (3) From Investigator Concerning His Reasons For the Investigative Procedures Used by Him

Text: On cross-examination, appellant was asked if he had employed a toxicologist to review the findings of the prosecution's toxicologist. Appellant said that he did, and, on further examination, he acknowledged that his expert agreed with the findings and toxicology of the prosecution's toxicologist. The testimony of some of the witnesses contained perceptions of personality changes observed by them in deceased. The pathologist testified as to the theories under which the autopsy was undertaken. The investigator testified as to his reasons for interviewing various individuals and for taking certain actions, and as to that which he believed his investigation reflected when deceased died. There was no objection to any of this testimony, and the issues relative thereto were first raised on appeal. As noted supra, even if error existed in the admission of such evidence, it can be considered on appeal only if it amounts to plain error. Since the admission of such testimony does not amount to plain error, the existence or nonexistence of error in its admission need not be considered. The elements of plain error are set forth in note 3, supra. Certainly, appellant has not established the violation of a substantial right resulting in material prejudice. As noted in the cases cited supra, the plain error doctrine is to be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances. Appellant has the burden of showing plain error. The exceptional circumstances do not here exist, and appellant has fallen far short of establishing plain error. The results of the toxicology tests were before the jury through the testimony of the State's toxicologist. The tests were conclusive. The fact that appellant's own toxicologist agreed with them is of no real importance, let alone being of material prejudice. If anything, the testimony simply went to the credibility of appellant's own testimony concerning the tests. Likewise, the comments of witnesses concerning observed personality changes on the part of deceased were of little weight in context of that placed before the jury in this many-day trial. The pathologist's testimony concerning his theories was in truth a factual recitation of the manner and purpose of the autopsy. Again, appellant falls far short of his burden to establish plain error. The investigator walked through the procedure taken by him in investigation of the matter. In doing so, appellant could possibly have objected to the words used. If such had been done, the meat of the testimony would undoubtedly have been placed before the jury in a more precise and proper manner. The failure to object may have been with intent that the testimony not be emphasized or cleaned up. In any event, considering the extensive testimony presented to the jury, I see no material prejudice from this piece of testimony. Applying the plain error rule cautiously, the decision that there was no plain error in this testimony is more than proper.