Opinion ID: 1238139
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Limiting of Defense Experts

Text: (31), (32) Defendant contends the trial court erred in ruling on the qualifications of two proposed defense experts in crime reconstruction and autopsy procedures. As explained below, the court's rulings were correct. The prosecution attempted to portray the murder as a particularly vicious, execution-style slaying. The theory was based on the eyewitness testimony of Carol DiCenso, who observed the assailant fire two shots, the first while the victim was standing, the second while the victim was lying on the ground. Ms. DiCenso's account of the murder was corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Hunter, a pathologist who performed the autopsy on the victim. Dr. Hunter stated that the second bullet did not exit the victim's back but rather struck a hard, flat surface, i.e., the pavement. He further testified that the second bullet caused an epithelial crush injury, which further indicated that the victim's back was pressed against a hard surface. To rebut the foregoing testimony and demonstrate that the two shots were fired rapidly while the victim was still standing, the defense attempted to qualify David Duncan, a retired deputy sheriff, as an expert in ballistics, firearms, examination of physical evidence and crime reconstruction based on physical evidence. Defendant also sought to qualify Jules Slaick, a licensed private investigator, as a crime scene reconstruction and ballistics expert. At the prosecutor's request, the trial court conducted an Evidence Code section 402 hearing to explore the nature of the proposed testimony and determine whether either witness was qualified as an expert. At the hearing, Duncan testified that the absence of mushrooming damage on the nose of the bullet showed it had not hit a hard, flat surface but rather a bone within the body cavity. Duncan also stated that the autopsy procedures may have skewed the evidence of the bullet's trajectory, and that a crush-type wound would have shown more discoloration than that found on the victim's back. Duncan's opinion was premised on his review of the autopsy records and his examination of the bullet. On cross-examination, Duncan acknowledged that he had no training or background in pathology and had never previously testified as an expert in that field; he had never examined a bullet wound microscopically, conducted tests to determine the effects of a bullet on the human body or removed a bullet from a human body. Nor did he know the meaning of the term epithelial crush injury. The trial court allowed Duncan to testify as a ballistics expert based on his previous experience examining spent projectiles, but determined that Duncan was not qualified to give medical testimony concerning the nature of the victim's injuries or the trajectory pattern of the bullet. Although one need not necessarily be a licensed physician to give a medical opinion ( People v. Villareal (1985) 173 Cal. App.3d 1136, 1142 [219 Cal. Rptr. 371]), here it is evident that Duncan was totally deficient in the requisite background, training or experience to state an opinion on the nature or cause of the victim's wounds. The trial court plainly did not abuse its discretion in limiting Duncan's testimony to ballistic evidence. ( People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 828 [218 Cal. Rptr. 49, 705 P.2d 372].) Defendant also attempted to qualify Jules Slaick, a licensed private investigator, as an expert in ballistics and crime scene reconstruction. Slaick proposed to testify that, based on his observations of the physical evidence, he believed the victim was standing or lunging forward when both shots were fired. He disagreed with Dr. Hunter's conclusion that the crush-type injuries to the victim's back where the bullet tried to exit were caused by a hard surface. Slaick acknowledged that he had no training in pathology and had never attended an autopsy. Slaick's experience in accident reconstruction was based on his military service 20 years earlier, when he took photographs of plane and car crashes. He had never photographed a crime scene involving a gunshot death. His opinion regarding the effect of the bullets on the victim's body was based on his viewing of documentary films of men in combat. His purported ballistics expertise was based on his own reading and experience with guns; he had no formal training in ballistics and was not familiar with the term epithelial crush injury. The trial court found that Slaick had not demonstrated an expertise in either crime reconstruction or ballistics, and limited his testimony to his observations of the crime scene. The court's ruling was plainly correct. By his own admission, Slaick had no background, experience or training in pathology or ballistics. There was no abuse of discretion. ( People v. Chavez, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 828.)