Opinion ID: 1536009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Repeated Reference to Defendant's Concern Over His Hand and Related Anger Towards Victim

Text: During the crime, the victim bit defendant's hand. At the police station, defendant stated at least three times that he was in considerable pain and blamed the victim for inflicting the wound. Dr. Askin, a forensic dentist, examined defendant's hand at the station and performed bite-mark identification and analysis. At trial, Sergeant Stanley testified about those events at the police station. He was asked: Q: Was there any further mention of the hand? A: Yes. He continued to complain about his hand being hurt and, again, he felt that Megan was responsible and he blamed her for that injury. We reject defendant's argument that this line of questioning was prejudicial. Questions regarding defendant's hand constituted relevant evidence of how the crime occurred. The evidence also corroborates the forensic determination that the bite on defendant's hand was made by the victim.