Opinion ID: 1936088
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: testimony of dr. galvez

Text: Taylor contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Dr. Rodrigo Galvez, the pathologist whose testimony was offered by the State to prove the cause of death. [1] Taylor contends that Dr. Galvez's testimony should not have been admitted because it had no probative value and because Galvez submitted two separate autopsy reports which the defense characterizes as contradictory. The evidence taken at the hearing on the motion to exclude Galvez's testimony showed that Dr. Galvez had performed an autopsy on the body identified to him as that of Mildred Spires on September 1, 1987. The report of that autopsy concluded that [c]ause of death cannot be established but certainly a neck trauma (strangulation) can be entertained. Without further examination of the body, Dr. Galvez later issued a second autopsy report which, in his view, was not inconsistent with the first report. In the second report, he concluded that death was a consequence of strangulation. At trial, Dr. Galvez was qualified as an expert witness in the area of pathology. His testimony indicated that in determining the cause of death he had taken into account circumstantial factors as well as the findings gleaned upon examination of the corpse. He testified that he had issued the second autopsy report only because he thought he had failed to file the original autopsy report. The State was required to prove as a part of the corpus delicti that the victim's death was a result of criminal agency and the usual way of proving that element in homicide cases is through proof of cause of death. While Dr. Galvez, as an experienced pathologist who had performed more than 3,000 autopsies, could not with certainty pinpoint the cause of death of the decomposed body, he could offer an opinion which would tend to make the cause of death more probable than it would have been without the testimony. Taylor contends further that Dr. Galvez's two autopsy reports were inconsistent and would not meet the requirement for expert testimony of M.R.E. 702 that it assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. This Court has said that expert testimony should be admitted only when the trial court can affirmatively answer the two-fold inquiry: (1) whether the expert's field is one in which it has been scientifically established that investigation and study in conformity with practices in the field will produce a valid result; and (2) whether the proposed testimony will assist the trier of fact. Hosford v. State, 560 So.2d 163, 168 (Miss. 1990). Taylor does not challenge the scientific validity of the field of pathology but contends that Dr. Galvez's testimony was not such testimony as would be helpful to the jury and would tend to confuse them. Taylor cites no authority for the proposition and offers no instance in which this or any other court has required that the testimony of an expert witness be excluded if the witness has made multiple statements which differ in some respects from each other. Any expert can offer an opinion if the expert witness possesses knowledge of the subject which is not possessed by a layman. Goodson v. State, 566 So.2d 1142, 1145 (Miss. 1990); cf. Keys v. Rehabilitation Centers, Inc., 574 So.2d 579 (Miss. 1990). Since Dr. Galvez clearly possessed greater skill than any member of the jury or any layman in determining the cause of death from a decomposed body, the trial court was not in error in admitting his testimony even though his testimony was not entirely consistent. West v. State, 519 So.2d 418, 426 (Miss. 1988). Dr. Galvez was subject to rigorous cross-examination and the jury was free to disregard his testimony entirely or in part. The jury had both autopsy reports as well as Dr. Galvez's explanation for writing two reports. There was no error in admitting the testimony of Dr. Galvez.