Opinion ID: 4514949
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: LaRosa's Qualifications

Text: The test for qualification of an expert is a relative one that is dependent on the particular witness's reference to the subject. Wilson v. Rivers, 357 S.C. 447, 452, 593 S.E.2d 603, 605 (2004). To be competent to testify as an expert, 'a witness must have acquired by reason of study or experience or both such knowledge and skill in a profession or science that he is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on the particular subject of his testimony.' Gooding v. St. Francis Xavier Hosp., 326 S.C. 248, 252-53, 487 S.E.2d 596, 598 (1997) (quoting O'Tuel v. Villani, 318 S.C. 24, 28, 455 S.E.2d 698, 701 (Ct. App. 1995), overruled on other grounds by I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 526 S.E.2d 716 (2000)). As noted above, LaRosa testified of his eighteen-year employment history with SLED and his extensive experience in crime scene analysis. His qualifications include two years of training with the FBI in its criminal profiler study program, his internship with a SCDMH forensic psychiatrist and psychologist (and his continuing relationship with SCDMH), as well as another internship with the FBI, during which he worked on active cases under peer-review by FBI supervisors. LaRosa testified he had been qualified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and assessment in federal court and in general sessions court. He testified that in this case, he would combine forensics and crime scene reconstruction with the psychology and behavior exhibited at the instant crime scene to give an opinion only as to the number of people present after the crime had been committed. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding LaRosa was qualified as an expert in crime scene analysis.