Opinion ID: 1829968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Court's Comments on Expert's Qualifications

Text: Hansen charges that the Circuit Court erred in comments made upon the qualifications of the prosecution's forensic scientist, Joe Andrews. In accepting Andrews as an expert and overruling defense' objection to his qualifications, the Court stated: I note your objection for the record. I consider him well qualified. And I think he can testify as an expert. I've approved him before myself. Overruled. Go ahead. Hansen now argues that the Court's comment unfairly and thus impermissibly bolstered Andrews' qualifications and testimony. We have considered the point and find it without merit. The law does not require that during the trial the judge behave as a deaf-mute. Stokes v. State, 548 So.2d 118, 125 (Miss. 1989); Haralson v. State, 314 So.2d 722, 724 (Miss. 1975); Bumpus v. State, 166 Miss. 276, 281, 144 So. 897, 898-99 (1932).