Opinion ID: 1203661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Pretrial Testimony of Dr. Richard J. Roberts

Text: In a pretrial hearing on the admissibility of the DNA print test evidence, Dr. Richard J. Roberts, Assistant Director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, testified as an expert for the Commonwealth. While qualifying Dr. Roberts as an expert, the Commonwealth, over Spencer's objection, was permitted to show that the director of the laboratory had won the Nobel Prize. On appeal, Spencer contends that the trial court violated [his] rights to due process, equal protection and a fair trial as guaranteed by the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. The contention is meritless. Assuming, without deciding, that the testimony was inadmissible, a trial court, as opposed to a jury, is presumed to separate the admissible from the inadmissible, and to have considered only competent evidence. Richard Eckhart v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 213, 216, 279 S.E.2d 155, 157 (1981). Moreover, Dr. Roberts' qualifications were substantial and unchallenged by Spencer. Indeed, whether Dr. Roberts qualified as an expert was a matter within the trial court's sound discretion, Lane v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 713, 718, 292 S.E.2d 358, 361 (1982), and we find no abuse of that discretion. During the same pretrial hearing, Dr. Roberts testified unequivocally that there was no disagreement in the scientific community about the reliability of DNA print testing. Spencer contends that the trial court limited his cross-examination of Dr. Roberts on this point. Because Spencer failed to proffer the questions he wanted to ask Dr. Roberts and the answers Dr. Roberts would have made, we are unable to review Spencer's claim. See Mackall v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 240, 256-57, 372 S.E.2d 759, 769 (1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 3261, 106 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989). [6]