Opinion ID: 1744914
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to allow defense expert Dr. Michael Stodard to be cross-examined on a New England Journal of Medicine article.

Text: ¶ 17. The Hartels contend that the circuit court abused its discretion by not allowing them to use a New England Journal of Medicine (Journal) article concerning acute diverticulitis to cross-examine Dr. Michael Stodard. Specifically, they argue that Dr. Stodard testified the [Journal] was generally reliable and well[-]respected. Therefore, they maintain that, pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Evidence 803(18), Dr. Stodard should have been allowed to be cross-examined. The defendants reply that Dr. Stodard admitted the [Journal] was respected in the medical community, but could not agree the Journal was generally authoritative or relied upon by the medical community. Accordingly, they assert that the circuit court correctly ruled that the test provided in the Rules of Evidence had not been met. The defendants add that because the Hartels put before the jury the statements from the [Journal] through cross-examination of Dr. [George] McGee, absolutely no prejudice to [the Hartels] resulted by not allowing Dr. Stodard to discuss this article; and no substantial right of [the Hartels] was adversely affected. ¶ 18. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 803(18) provides, in pertinent part, that: [t]he following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: ... (18) To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross-examination or relied upon by him in direct examination, statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits. Miss. R. Evid. 803(18) (emphasis added). Dr. Stodard testified that the Journal was well-respected in the medical community, but he refused to concede that it was a reliable authority. [9] The following exchange took place between counsel for the Hartels and Dr. Stodard: Q: Doctor, in the medical community do you recognize generally speaking the [Journal], a peer reviewed periodical, as being a generally reliable authority? A: I would answer yes and did answer yes when you asked me if it was respected. Yes, it is respected by some. For me to know if it's reliable or not I would have to subscribe and read it on a regular basis which I never have and do not. So, no, sir, I cannot answer the question that it is reliable. I certainly would strongly disagree that it is authoritative. Q: My question to you is in the medical community is the [Journal] generally accepted as a generally reliable source of medical information, peer review[ed] medical information, used by physicians. A: Again, my answer would be only I can determine if it's reliable in my mind.... I cannot say it is reliable, no, sir. [Counsel for the Hartels]: He's missing my question, Your Honor. A: I cannot say that it is generally reliable among all physicians in the United States. Q: I didn't say among all physicians. The question is, is it generally reliable among physicians in general  A: I cannot agree with that statement, no, sir. [ [10] ] (Emphasis added). Based on this testimony, the circuit court ruled that the Journal had not been established as a reliable authority[,] under Mississippi Rules of Evidence 803(18), and refused to allow the Hartels to cross-examine Dr. Stodard using the Journal article. ¶ 19. The circuit court's evidentiary rulings are subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. See Matthews, 926 So.2d at 212. Neither Dr. Stodard, nor any other expert witness, testified that the Journal was a reliable authority. Miss. R. Evid. 803(18). Therefore, neither the Journal, nor the subject article contained therein, was established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. Miss. R. Evid. 803(18). Accordingly, this Court cannot find that the circuit court abused its discretion in ruling that the Journal article could not be used during the cross-examination of Dr. Stodard.