Opinion ID: 2432996
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Trooper Whitley

Text: ETMF insists the trial court should have granted its motion for a mistrial when the trial court permitted State Trooper Terrie Whitley, to testify about extra skid marks which could be seen in photographs of the accident scene but which she had not observed during her investigation, nor noted on her accident report. On her accident report she indicated the ETMF vehicle had twenty-four feet of skid marks. ETMF contends the effect of the trial court's ruling qualified Trooper Whitley to testify on accident reconstruction which she was not competent to do. We have been unable to find anything in the officer's testimony which is particularly damaging to ETMF. The length of the extra skid marks is never stated and so far as we can determine, the testimony may have been inconsequential. The only conceivable conclusion which might arise from extra skid marks would relate to the speed and the officer made it perfectly plain that she was not able to determine the speed of any of the vehicles and made no attempt to do so. The officer's testimony involved essentially what she could see in several photographs. All parties were permitted to question her on these details and the trial court offered to caution the jury to make its own interpretation of the photographs. The offer was refused. In short, we find nothing in Officer Whitley's testimony that meets the requirement of substantial prejudice under Rule 103 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence.