Opinion ID: 2167035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Moses Schanfield's Testimony

Text: Link next claims that the trial court erred in allowing one of the state's DNA experts, Dr. Moses Schanfield, to testify that the report of defense expert Dr. Randell Libby showed that Libby had no knowledge of how to interpret mixed stains. This testimony, Link contends, was a direct comment on Dr. Libby's credibility that invaded the province of the jury. As noted, direct comments relating to the truthfulness or credibility of a witness are generally inadmissible. However, an expert witness may testify that he disagrees with the scientific conclusions reached by another expert witness. State v. Love, 963 S.W.2d 236, 245 (Mo.App. 1997); Stone v. City of Columbia, 885 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Mo.App.1994). Although it is a close question, Dr. Schanfield's no knowledge remark was an impermissible comment on Dr. Libby's credibility. However, in the context of Dr. Schanfield's entire testimony, the prejudice to Link was negligible. The record shows that Dr. Schanfield gave a detailed scientific explanation of his disagreement with Dr. Libby's report, that he was harshly critical of the report, and that he stated the report contained impossible conclusions. The no knowledge remark was made at the end of Dr. Schanfield's rather devastating testimony and could hardly have caused more damage to Link than what had been said before. Absent prejudice, the error in admitting the no knowledge remark did not rise to the level of reversible error. The point is denied.