Opinion ID: 1832097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: whether the trial court committed reversible error in allowing cumulative, overly prejudicial, inadmissible testimony from the state's expert witness.

Text: ¶ 42. The State offered Dr. Michael West as an expert in the fields of bite mark identification, wound analysis and alternate light photography. Over the defense's objection, Dr. West was accepted as an expert in the fields of bite mark evidence and forensic odontology. Stubbs argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Dr. West as an expert and in further allowing Dr. West to testify beyond the narrow area for which he limited his qualifications. In addition to testifying to bite marks, Stubbs contends Dr. West was allowed to exceed his expertise in the areas of wound patterns, interpretation of photographs, and the effects of narcotics. Stubbs also argues the most prejudicial testimony elicited from Dr. West was a re-enactment with Williams. Stubbs argues because the trial court clearly abused its discretion in allowing Dr. West to testify as he did, this Court should reverse the convictions. ¶ 43. Stubbs filed several motions to exclude the bite mark evidence. One motion was filed on the grounds that this type of evidence was not readily accepted in the scientific community because it was unreliable and proper procedures have not been established. [3] The trial court denied this motion prior to trial. Stubbs also filed a motion to exclude a video tape produced by Dr. West and to exclude his testimony pertaining to the video tape because of its prejudicial nature. Stubbs alleged that Dr. West tampered with evidence by placing a mold of her teeth directly onto the hip of Williams where the original bite mark had been found. Stubbs also contends it was highly prejudicial for Dr. West to point to several alleged cigarette wounds found on Williams with an actual cigarette. Stubbs argues the trial court erroneously denied this motion without conducting a Rule 403 balancing test. See Miss. R. Evid. 403. ¶ 44. Vance argues Dr. West's testimony should have been excluded because it was clearly beyond his field of expertise. Vance contends the opinion Dr. West gave regarding the teeth impressions of Stubbs was not an expert opinion. Dr. West stated he could not find enough details in the mark to give it his highest opinion as an expert. Vance argues Dr. West's testimony was prejudicial because it concluded a question of fact; he was not able to testify to a reasonable degree of certainty; and, it did not help the jury clearly resolve an issue of fact. Although Dr. West was never qualified as an expert in video enhancement, he was allowed to offer testimony as to a videotape which he believed depicted Williams being carried out of Stubbs's truck into the hotel. Vance contends that Dr. West was also allowed to offer lay opinion testimony regarding alleged cigarette burns on Williams by holding a cigarette next to the wounds to conclude they matched. Vance also strongly contends Dr. West tampered with evidence by taking a dental mold of Stubbs and pressing it against Williams's leg and creating a bite mark that was not present before his procedure. ¶ 45. The State argues the trial court did not abuse its discretion in accepting Dr. West as an expert or in allowing Dr. West to testify at trial. The State argues this Court has previously recognized odontology as an acceptable area of professional and forensic expertise. The State contends that Dr. West followed the proper procedures for bite mark testimony, that the appearance of bite marks was testified to by others before Dr. West was called to consult on the case, and that exhibits also clearly showed the evidence of bite marks on Williams prior to Dr. West conducting his test regarding the dental molds of Stubbs. ¶ 46. The State also argues that Stubbs was allowed extensive cross-examination of Dr. West; that Stubbs also called her own medical expert, Dr. Rodrigo Galvez, to testify in her behalf; that Dr. Galvez denied the impressions found on Williams were the results of bite marks; that Dr. Galvez also denied Williams's head injuries were from contact with the latches on Stubbs's tool box found in her truck; and, that, on the other hand, Dr. Galvez did agree that the marks on Williams resembled bite marks. ¶ 47. With regard to the contention that Dr. West testified outside the area of his expertise, the State argues that the record shows this was not the basis of the objections made at trial; that the objection regarding the cigarettes was only to Dr. West testifying to the history of cigarettes, not to using a cigarette to point to alleged cigarette burns; that the objection regarding the surveillance tape photographs was only to Dr. West using the term blow as well as a Rule 403 objection; that the objection was not regarding the video enhancement showing a body being carried into the hotel room; and, that the Miss. R. Evid. 403 objection was repeated when Williams was brought in before the jury to demonstrate the distance between the injuries on her head and side. ¶ 48. Regarding the alleged tampering of evidence by Dr. West, the State argues Dr. West clearly explained his procedure to the jury. Although Dr. Galvez testified he would have used a different procedure, he did not testify that Dr. West employed an improper medical or forensic procedure. ¶ 49. And finally regarding the contention that prejudicial testimony was elicited from Dr. West by using Williams to compare the injuries on her head to the latches from the tool box, the State points out that the trial court conducted the following Rule 403 balancing test: STATE: ... It's to show that thethat the latches and all show that the injuries to her head and to her side was the same length as the marks on the tool box. It's just to show that. COURT: Is it to compare the distance on the actual victim to the distance on the actual tool box? STATE: On the latches of the tool box, yes, sir. COURT: Then it would be appropriate. And the probability of it would outweigh any danger of mistake, prejudice, so your motion is overruled. ¶ 50. Rule 702 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence states: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. ¶ 51. In Howard v. State, 701 So.2d 274 (Miss.1997), the bite mark testimony of Dr. West was also at issue. This Court, in citing Spence v. Texas, 795 S.W.2d 743, 750-51 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), and State v. Ortiz, 198 Conn. 220, 502 A.2d 400, 403 (1985), provided the proper procedures for allowing bite mark testimony. There is little consensus in the scientific community on the number of points which must match before any positive identification can be announced. Spence at 750-51. Because the opinions concerning the methods of comparison employed in a particular case may differ, it is certainly open to defense counsel to attack the qualifications of the expert, the methods and data used to compare the bite marks to persons other than the defendant, and the factual and logical bases of the expert's opinions. Also, where such expert testimony is allowed by the trial court, it should be open to the defendant to present evidence challenging the reliability of the field of bite-mark comparisons. State v. Ortiz, 198 Conn. 220, 502 A.2d 400, 403 (1985). 701 So.2d at 288. ¶ 52. In Brooks v. State, 748 So.2d 736 (Miss.1999), this Court affirmatively stated that bite mark evidence was admissible in Mississippi. Brooks accepted Dr. West as an expert in the field of forensic odontology. Id. at 739. However, Brooks attempted to challenge the reliability of bite mark evidence by stating there were no established guidelines in evaluating the evidence and the field of forensic odontology was not recognized by the American Dental Association as a specialty. Id. Brooks also called his own expert in forensic odontology, Dr. Harry Mincer, to testify as to the procedures used by Dr. West. Id. at 740. Although Dr. Mincer found consistencies between the mold of Brook's teeth and the bite mark on the defendant, he testified he could not state with medical certainty that Brooks made the bite marks. Id. Dr. Mincer also testified, based on his findings, he was unable to exclude Brooks as the person having made the bite marks. Id. This Court found that because Brooks was given the opportunity to challenge the reliability of the bite mark evidence as required by Howard, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Dr. West to testify. Id. ¶ 53. This Court has, on the other hand, criticized the testimony of Dr. West. In Banks v. State, 725 So.2d 711 (Miss.1997), the defendant was found guilty of capital murder in the course of a robbery. The only evidence that tied Banks to the crime was the testimony of a witness who saw Banks on the victim's porch around the time she was assumed to have died and part of a bologna sandwich found at the crime scene. Id. at 713. Dr. West was called as the State's expert witness to testify that Banks's teeth matched the bite mark found on the sandwich. Id. Although Dr. West took several photographs of the sandwich, he later threw away the actual sandwich. Id. at 714. This Court stated Dr. West's destruction of the sandwich was unnecessary and inexcusable. Id. at 716. This Court held the admission of the evidence regarding the sandwich was fundamentally unfair since the sandwich had been destroyed, thereby depriving the defendant's expert the opportunity to actually inspect the sandwich. Thus, this Court reversed the conviction. Id. ¶ 54. Although Stubbs and Vance both objected to Dr. West being qualified as an expert, they were each given the opportunity to challenge the reliability of the bite mark evidence as required by Howard. However, the defense failed to object to Dr. West testifying outside the area which he had been qualified as an expert except as to narcotics. The trial court found Dr. West's testimony, including testimony regarding bite marks, Williams's injuries, and video enhancement, to be relevant and more probative than prejudicial. Because of the extensive record before this Court, because of the trial court's permitting extensive cross-examination of Dr. West by defense counsel, and because the defense called its own expert, Dr. Rodrigo Galvez, to rebut Dr. West's testimony, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Dr. West. While, as noted above, this Court in Brooks made an affirmative statement that bite-mark identification is clearly admissible in our state trial courts, we in no way implied that Dr. Michael West was given carte blanche to testify to anything and everything he so desired. From our cases wherein Dr. West has been involved, he has primarily been recognized by this Court to have been appropriately declared by the trial courts to be an expert in the field of forensic odontology. This does not mean that Dr. West can indiscriminately offer so-called expert testimony in other areas in which he not even remotely meets the Miss.R.Evid. 702 criteria. We caution prosecutors and defense attorneys, as well as our learned trial judges, to take care that Dr. West's testimony as an expert is confined to the area of his expertise under Miss. R. Evid. 702. A different record in this case could have brought about different results.