Opinion ID: 1690126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: did the state's pathologist properly offer an opinion as to the position of the victim's body when she was shot?

Text: ś 107. This issue is procedurally barred since Jordan failed to raise a contemporaneous objection to the testimony of William D. Atchison, M. D., a forensic pathologist. See Williams v. State, 684 So.2d 1179, 1203 (Miss.1996). Notwithstanding the procedural bar, the issue is without merit. ś 108. After Jordan stipulated to Dr. Atchison's qualifications, Dr. Atchison testified that he performed an autopsy on Edwina's body. Edwina died of a gunshot wound which entered the right occipital skull and exited the left frontal bone above the left eye. The bullet traveled on an upward path, from right to left and from back to front. An examination of the back of the head showed no singing of the hair. The skin on the edges of the wound were slightly discolored. The wound was not a contact wound, but it was a near wound with a distinct abrasion. Exhibit 28, a photograph of the back of the head, showed the dark ring around the wound. It was not a far wound. A microscopic examination of the wound showed bone fragments and powder residue. His opinion, in terms of reasonable medical probability, was that the bullet was fired within a matter of inches and possibly two feet, 30 inches, in that realm of distance; and that Edwina was in a stationary position on her knees when the gun was fired. ś 109. Jordan first states that Dr. Atchison's testimony should not have been allowed since he failed to state that his opinion was within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. See Catchings v. State, 684 So.2d 591, 596-98 (Miss.1996) (There is no magic language to be used, but the expert opinion must clearly be given with the certainty required for admissibility.). Therefore, Dr. Atchison could have given his opinion without stating that it was within a degree of medical certainty, as long as the opinion was given with reasonable expert certainty. The record clearly shows that Dr. Atchison expressed his opinions within a reasonable medical probability. This was adequate, and Jordan's contention otherwise is without merit. ś 110. Jordan's second contention is that Dr. Atchison's testimony was outside of his expertise and was nothing but rank speculation. See Fowler v. State, 566 So.2d 1194, 1199 (Miss.1990). Jordan's expert, Dr. Leroy Riddick, testified that no one could have deduced the circumstances of Edwina's murder from the forensic evidence available. Dr. Riddick's testimony, however, did not preclude Dr. Atchison, whose qualification as an expert was stipulated to by Jordan, from expressing a different opinion and offering his own theory of how the murder occurred. ś 111. Therefore, this issue is without merit.