Opinion ID: 1871979
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Trial Court's Determination Of The Status Of Two Witnesses As Experts In The Jury's Presence Was Harmless Error

Text: Appellant argues that the trial court erred by determining, in the presence of the jury, that two of the prosecution's witnesses were experts. On the first day of trial, the Commonwealth called Dr. Leroy Gallenstein to testify. After stating his qualifications, the following exchange occurred: PROSECUTOR: Judge, we submit Dr. Gallenstein as an expert. COURT: Objection? DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, Judge, for the record, I object. COURT: Overruled. On the second day of trial, the Commonwealth called Sabrina Christian to testify. After stating her qualifications, the following exchange occurred: PROSECUTOR: Judge, we would submit Ms. Christian as an expert witness in this field. COURT: Objections? DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, Judge, for the record I object. COURT: Overruled. Ladies and gentlemen, the witness will be considered an expert in her field which means she is qualified to give the opinion evidence which she is about to give. Which we treat as any other evidence. Appellant maintains that the court's statements bolstered the credibility of these two witnesses, as well as the credibility of HA, because their testimony corroborated her testimony. The determination that a witness is an expert should be made outside the presence of the jury. Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 952 S.W.2d 216, 218 (Ky.1997) (Great care should be exercised by a trial judge when the determination has been made that a witness is an expert. . . . All such rulings should be made outside the hearing of the jury and there should be no declaration that the witness is an expert.). Although we agree that the trial court should not make such determinations in front of the jury, these statements by the trial court were harmless error. We have noted that the credibility of every witness . . . including expert witnesses, is subject to attack and cross-examination, this being the primary means by which trial counsel can attempt to persuade jurors of the weight or significance to be attached to testimony of the witnesses. . . . Edwards v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.2d 380, 385 (Ky.1977). Based on the evidence presented at trial and defense counsel's opportunity to cross-examine the expert witnesses, the error was not unduly prejudicial.