Opinion ID: 1751760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The medical examiner's characterization of Jones' death as a homicide

Text: In his amended 29.15 motion, Dickerson also claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing to object when Dr. Deidiker, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Jones' body, testified that the manner of death was a homicide. Dickerson argues that the motion court erred in denying his claim for post-conviction relief without a hearing on this issue. Dickerson argues that, in failing to object to Dr. Deidiker's characterization of the victim's death as a homicide, trial counsel's performance fell below the standard of care of a reasonably competent attorney. Dr. Deidiker's characterization of the victim's death as a homicide was, according to Dickerson, unqualified opinion evidence as to a qualified issue that rebutted Dickerson's claim of self-defense. Dickerson asserts that the word homicide has a singularly sinister connotation in the vernacular. Dickerson also contends that the word homicide implies intentionality and that, in characterizing Jones' death as such, Dr. Deidiker improperly impinged upon the province of the jury. Black's Law Dictionary defines homicide as the killing of one human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another. Black's Law Dictionary 375 (Abridged 5th ed.1983). [4] `Homicide' is a comprehensive word that means any killing of a human being, and it does not necessarily import a crime, but includes also those cases in which the law justifies or excuses the taking of human life. CJS HOMICIDE sec. 1 (2008) (internal citations omitted). As these definitions make clear, the word homicide connotes neither intentionality nor criminality on the part of any actor. Dr. Deidiker's use of the word homicide merely connoted his belief, after conducting an autopsy and discovering head trauma, that Jones' death resulted from the act, procurement, or omission of another. The testimony indicates the medical examiner's belief that Jones' death was causally linked to the bar fight, not to some superseding cause. As such, Dickerson's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to Dr. Deidiker's use of the word. The factual conclusion embodied in the use of the word homicide is within the medical examiner's expertise. It is quite plausible that trial counsel, as a matter of trial strategy, did not object because he did not wish to highlight the causal connection between Dickerson's punch and Jones' death. In any event, the motion court did not err in overruling Dickerson's motion without a hearing on this issue.