Opinion ID: 1771982
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court commit reversible error in the admission of certain testimony of the state's expert witness, dr. pablo hernandez?

Text: The underlying felony the prosecutor sought to prove in this case was kidnapping. He, therefore, relied heavily on the expert medical opinions of Dr. Hernandez to prove that Miss Pierce's inability to consent in her drugged state supported a finding that she had been kidnapped. The subject matter of that testimony included: (1) The effects of PCP and methaqualone on a person; (2) The potentiation effect of PCP and methaqualone on a person; (3) The effect of PCP, methaqualone, alcohol, and marijuana on Karon Pierce; (4) The ability of Pierce to make rational judgments while under the influence of the above listed substances. Dr. Hernandez also answered a hypothetical question posed by the prosecutor which Williams maintains contained far too many uncertainties and unknowns to have properly been placed before the jury. Dr. Hernandez explained that potentiation is medical terminology meaning the use of two medications or chemicals in combination, which increased the effect of one or both. When he was questioned about the process of potentiation with use of alcohol and methaqualone, Williams objected on the grounds that there was no evidence of Miss Pierce taking methaqualone on the night of her death or within any reasonable time period prior to her death as the toxicologist had refused to offer any opinion as to the time or amount of any ingestion of that drug by Miss Pierce. Only a trace amount of methaqualone was found in her system, which could have been ingested at any time prior to the incident. This objection was overruled. Dr. Hernandez was asked the following hypothetical: I would like to pose a hypothetical, and based on these facts I want to know if you can draw a conclusion. The subject is an 18 year old girl, 5' 4 tall, weighing 118 pounds. She was staggering and her speech was slurred. She was coherent one minute and incoherent the next. She was hollering and telling people to leave her alone. Inside her body was discovered traces of PCP, methaqualone, and alcohol. Based on this hypothetical, do you have an opinion, to a reasonable medical certainty, as to the amount of her intoxication or the level of these drugs in her system? When Williams objected that this hypothetical did not adequately and fully state the facts, the trial judge overruled the objection and allowed the doctor to answer, explaining that the defense could add other facts on cross examination. The doctor's answers to the hypothetical and the follow-up questions were as follows: BY THE WITNESS: The physiological response and psychological response of a person to these drugs  PCP, quaalude, alcohol  would depend on and vary greatly upon the amount of the drug ingested, the method of ingestion, and the way and the length in which one unto the other had interacted. Talking about PCP specifically, it has to do with the events that are taking place throughout the process. PCP has a more disturbing effect on people by virtue of situations, events, and circumstances that are going on. A person on PCP will act more agitated, more restless. The hollering and running up and down you describe in the hypothetical, this could be an effect upon a person who has a mixture of those drugs. ... . By MR. GURROLA: Would you have an opinion as to how intoxicated that person would be on those drugs? BY MR. GAUTIER: Continuing to show our objection. BY THE WITNESS: In that particular correlation, the person would be in a level of high influence of intoxication upon the combination of the drugs. We don't know the amount of drugs in that person or the amount of drugs that person had taken. There is an indication, hypothetically, that she was in a level of intoxication. I would say this person was in a level of intoxication from which, more likely, probably, impaired judgment may take place, no awareness of components of situations taking place. The person may not be totally in control of the total judgment in that situation. They may not be able to utilize proper judgment according to the situation. BY MR. GURROLA: In your opinion, would that person, in that state, have been able to make rational judgments based on the situations? BY MR. GAUTIER: We would show a continuing objection for the reason that the hypothetical has too many uncertainties, ifs, and unknowns in it. BY THE COURT: Overruled. BY THE WITNESS: Hypothetically, with that level of disfunction in the picture that I have been given, that person would not have been able to make the proper judgment in the situations and conditions for which a response in that part would be made of that person. BY MR. GURROLA: Taking the same hypothetical which I have already given you, add to it the fact that this same individual some several hours later is smoking two to six marijuana cigarettes, would you be able to form an opinion as to that person's ability to make rational judgments based on the situation? BY MR. GAUTIER: We object again for lack of completeness of the hypothetical and for the reason that the witness has not been qualified as an expert on what is rational and what a rational judgment is. BY THE COURT: If he can answer, I will allow him to answer. Objection overruled. BY THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question? [The question was repeated] BY THE WITNESS: If this person was exhibiting that type of behavior or activity or disruption three to four hours prior to smoking several joints of marijuana, that person still more likely will be in the influence of the previous drug and will not be able to make a good, sound judgment with the added effect of the marijuana. In other words, all of this and the smoking of the marijuana would make me think that this person would be in a deeper state of disfunction than at a more functionable level. They will be much more improbable to make proper judgment because the effect of some of these drugs does not vanish within an hour or two or three. While on cross-examination, Dr. Hernandez acknowledged that several factors would affect his answer, including the person's experience with drugs, the tolerance level of the person, previous usage, nutritional level, tissue condition and fat distribution, age, racial component, as well as the frame of mind of a person at a given time, influence on the person, situation the person is experiencing, and the desired effect that the person wants. The doctor finally stated that he would really have to see the person before rendering an opinion. This Court has held that the interrogator may frame his question on any theory which can reasonably be deduced from the evidence and select as a predicate therefor such facts as the evidence proves or reasonably tends to establish or justify. Carleton v. State, 425 So.2d 1036, 1040 (Miss. 1983); Chapman v. Carlson, 240 So.2d 263, 268 (Miss. 1970). Whether or not sufficient evidence is present to support the hypothetical question presented to the expert is a question of law for this Court to determine. Strickland v. M.H. McMath Gin Co., Inc., 457 So.2d 925, 928 (Miss. 1984); Belesky v. City of Biloxi, 412 So.2d 230, 233 (Miss. 1982). When facts are in dispute the hypothetical question may be stated in terms consistent with the theory of the interrogator. 457 So.2d at 928; Magnolia Hospital v. Moore, 320 So.2d 793, 798 (Miss. 1975). The interrogator cannot, however, assume facts unsupported by any evidence, 457 So.2d at 928; Washington v. Greenville Mfg. & Machine Works, 223 So.2d 642, 644 (Miss. 1969), nor omit material undisputed facts. 457 So.2d at 928; 320 So.2d at 799. Slight exaggerations of the evidence presented in the hypothetical generally will not require its exclusion. 457 So.2d at 929. If the question posed fairly summarizes the relevant facts, it is not necessary that every minute undisputed detail be included, so long as opposing counsel has an opportunity on cross-examination to bring out the additional details. Gerlach v. State, 466 So.2d 75, 78 (Miss. 1985). The trial court was authorized by our law to overrule the objections to the hypothetical question. 466 So.2d at 78; King v. State, 251 Miss. 161, 174, 168 So.2d 637, 642 (1964). This record shows that on cross-examination Dr. Hernandez freely admitted just exactly how contingent his opinion was upon various factors. The conclusions of Dr. Hernandez were no more than a layman could determine for himself if presented with the same question. The doctor testified that a person on PCP, Quaaludes, and alcohol would be in a level of intoxication and that smoking two to six marijuana cigarettes would increase that level of disfunction. There is no error here.