Opinion ID: 2385862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony Concerning Bloodstains on the Defendant's Clothing

Text: Part of the prosecutor's case was to show that the person who killed Boston would not necessarily have received substantial bloodstains on his clothing. During voir dire of the state's blood-spatter expert, defense counsel objected to any testimony concerning the expert's use of Hilton's clothing in forming his opinions. The trial justice sustained this objection, and the state made no reference to Hilton's clothing during direct examination of the blood-spatter expert. On cross-examination, however, defense counsel asked the expert whether he had seen Hilton's clothing and whether he was aware that another suspect had changed his clothes before the police could examine them. The state on redirect examination asked the expert whether he had examined Hilton's clothing and, receiving an affirmative answer, questioned the expert about what he had found. When defense counsel objected to these questions, the trial justice responded, You knew the issue of clothing was a major concern discussed off the record and out of the presence of the jury before .... He [defense counsel] brought out the fact the doctor reviewed the clothing. . . . The objection is overruled . . . . No authority need be cited for the proposition that a party who has successfully objected to testimony on a particular issue and thereafter intentionally elicits testimony on the same issue will be held to have waived this earlier objection. In light of the blood-spatter expert's guarded testimony concerning a possible blood spot he had found on Hilton's trousersan article of clothing that had already been introduced in evidence without objectionwe find no error in the ruling.