Opinion ID: 2789508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Work

Text: ¶29. Finally, Brown argues that, in his analysis of the adaptive functioning area of work, the trial judge incorrectly focused on what Brown could do, rather than what he could not do. Brown cites a law review article for the proposition that the analysis of adaptive functioning deficits must focus on deficits, not abilities. But that view is inconsistent with our precedent, which has considered expert testimony regarding what a person is able to do in conjunction with what he or she cannot do. See Goodin, 102 So. 3d at 1106, 1110-11; Thorson v. State, 76 So. 3d 667, 673 (Miss. 2011); Doss, 19 So. 3d at 712. Assessing either deficits or abilities in a vacuum would not give a full picture of an individual’s functioning in any area. Further, other than the apparent inability to hold a job, evidence was not presented about what Brown could not do in the area of work. The trial judge did not err by considering Brown’s abilities along with his deficits. ¶30. Each of Brown’s claims regarding the trial court’s application of the correct legal standard is without merit. The trial judge applied the correct legal standard in determining whether Brown satisfied the Chase requirements. II. Whether the trial court’s finding that Brown did not have significant deficits in adaptive functioning was clearly erroneous. ¶31. To satisfy the clinical definition of mental retardation, the petitioner must prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he had significant limitations in at least two adaptive functioning skills. Goodin, 102 So. 3d at 1104, 1111 (¶¶ 2, 30) (citations omitted). Following an evidentiary hearing in a PCR case, the trial court’s findings of fact must be clearly erroneous to warrant reversal. Goodin, 102 So. 3d at 1111 (¶ 30) (quoting Doss, 19 17 So. 3d at 694). The adaptive skill areas to be considered are: communication, self-care, home living, social and interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, work, and leisure. Goodin, 102 So. 3d at 1112 (¶ 33); Chase, 873 So. 2d at 1027-28 (¶ 69). ¶32. Brown claims that the trial court’s finding that he did not have significant adaptive functioning deficits in the areas of functional academics, work, self-care and home living, social/interpersonal skills, and health and safety was clearly erroneous. Brown takes issue with the trial judge’s conclusion that many of Brown’s job difficulties and trouble in the areas of social/interpersonal skills and health and safety could have been attributed to a substance abuse problem. While the judge did note that many of the cited issues were consistent with someone who had a substance abuse problem, that was not the only evidence he considered. In a twelve-page order, the judge outlined the testimony and evidence presented regarding each area of adaptive functioning. ¶33. The trial judge first considered whether Brown had an adaptive functioning deficit in the area of functional academic skills. The judge outlined the testimony from Gilbreath, Kizer, Dr. Zimmerman, and Dr. Storer and concluded that “Brown did suffer from some deficiencies in academic achievement,” but “the deficiencies do not appear to be the type confined to those suffering from mental retardation.” He stated that other than the “LD” notation, “no proof has been presented that there was ever a finding that Mr. Brown suffered from a learning ‘disability’ much less that the disability met the legal definition of mental retardation for Atkins purposes.” Finally, the judge found that Brown’s academic difficulties 18 were “simply not unique and could equally be explained by any number of reasons other than an ‘adaptive functioning deficit,’” and that Brown had failed to satisfy his burden of proof to show a significant adaptive functioning deficit in functional academic skills. ¶34. Next, the trial judge analyzed whether Brown had an adaptive functioning deficit in the work area. The order discussed Dr. Zimmermann’s testimony that Brown had lost several jobs for poor performance or fighting with his supervisors and his expert opinion that Brown had a corresponding adaptive functioning deficit. The trial judge noted that Brown worked as a delivery person for several companies; worked for an energy company; worked as a packer on an assembly line; and had been in the Job Corps. The order discussed Dr. Storer’s expert findings that, though frequent jobs changes could evidence an adaptive functioning deficit, he did not attribute Brown’s struggles to an adaptive functioning deficit and opined that the job difficulties may have been due to Brown’s substance abuse. The trial judge concluded that Brown did not have a significant adaptive functioning deficit in work. The order reasoned that “the testimony presented could clearly be explained just as easily as a substance abuse problem as a mental retardation indicator.” The judge found that Brown’s ability to perform his jobs made substance abuse a more likely cause of his termination, and that his repeated job turnover did not establish an adaptive functioning deficit. ¶35. The judge then considered whether Brown had an adaptive functioning deficit in the areas of self-care and home living. The trial judge considered that Brown had never lived on his own, did not understand money, and could not manage his own finances, but could cook, clean, and take his children to the doctor. The judge concluded that, while Brown 19 continued to live with his parents as an adult and allowed his mother and wife to take care of him, that “does not meet the definition of an adaptive functioning deficit” and “fits the expected pattern of a drug abuser.” ¶36. Analyzing whether Brown had an adaptive functioning deficit in social and interpersonal skills, the judge noted that Brown had several violent confrontations with family members and that Brown claimed he was fired from various jobs for fighting with management. The fights with his family members often occurred at home, which seemed to be a volatile setting where fighting was common. The judge concluded that the outbursts of anger described would be common for someone with a substance abuse problem and that Brown had failed to prove an adaptive functioning deficit. ¶37. Finally, the order considered whether Brown had an adaptive functioning deficit in the areas of health and safety. The order noted Dr. Zimmermann’s expert opinion that Brown’s substance abuse both later in life and as a child was indicative of an adaptive functioning deficit and a predisposing factor for mental retardation. The judge also noted that Brown’s wife had reported that he was a reckless driver, totaling several cars, and that he did not go to the doctor on a regular basis. He concluded that “[t]hese are mere isolated incidents some of which clearly reflect substance abuse” and “a broad statement that Brown did not regularly go to the doctor or to a dentist is insufficient.” ¶38. Although Dr. Zimmerman opined that Brown had significant deficits in adaptive functioning, Dr. Storer concluded that Brown’s scores on formal measures of adaptive functioning were below average, “but not two standard deviations or more below average as 20 would be required for a diagnosis of mental retardation.” A “conflict in the evidence presented is properly resolved by the trier of fact[,]” in the case sub judice, the trial judge. Martin v. State, 871 So. 2d 693, 698 (¶ 18) (Miss. 2004). We will not reweigh evidence or make findings of fact. “Fact-finding is left to the trial courts, and we ‘review findings of fact with great deference.’” Butler v. State, 102 So. 3d 260, 270 (¶ 29) (Miss. 2012) (citing Scott v. State, 981 So. 2d 964, 969-70 (¶ 21) (Miss. 2008)). ¶39. In the instant case, the trial court considered expert testimony, psychological testing and evaluation, school records, social history, work history, testimony from teachers, and testimony from Brown’s wife, and found that Brown had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had significant limitations in at least two adaptive functioning skills. Brown’s case is not “a rare case that merits reversal, because the evidence is so convincing, barely controverted, and covers such a span of time.” Goodin, 102 So. 3at 1113 (¶ 37). Giving the appropriate deference to the trial judge as the finder of fact and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings, the judge’s findings were supported by the evidence presented and were not clearly erroneous. III. Whether the trial court erred by admitting Dr. Storer’s report into evidence and by relying on certain statements therein. ¶40. Brown claims that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to admit Dr. Storer’s expert report into evidence because it contained inadmissible hearsay. He also asserts that the trial judge erroneously relied on statements about his substance abuse that were contradicted at the hearing and that the trial judge should not have relied on information in the report from individuals who did not testify at the hearing. 21 A. Admissibility of Expert Reports ¶41. Brown asserts that expert reports are hearsay and, as a general rule, it is error to admit an expert report into evidence. “‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Miss. R. Evid. 801(c). Certainly, expert reports may contain statements from individuals not called to testify at trial, because an expert is allowed “to base his opinion on the opinions of others [that] are not in evidence so long as experts in the field ordinarily rely on such opinions in forming their own opinions.” Alexander v. State, 759 So. 2d 411, 420 (¶ 30) (Miss. 2000) (quoting Gray v. State, 728 So. 2d 36, 56-57 (¶ 86) (Miss. 1998) (citing Miss. R. Evid. 703)). ¶42. Brown claims that the trial court erred by considering statements made to Dr. Storer by Albert Brown, Brown’s father, and Constance Carter, Brown’s high school girlfriend and the mother of two of his children. Brown argues that the statements were hearsay and that he did not have the opportunity to cross examine the individuals. Dr. Storer testified that he had interviewed both individuals, and he testified as to the information they provided, which largely pertained to Brown’s work history. Both said that Brown drove a delivery truck and that he had a commercial driver’s license. The statements in question were not offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Rather, the statements were used to explain the basis of Dr. Storer’s conclusions and opinions regarding Brown’s work history. Thus, the statements were not hearsay. See Flowers v. State, 842 So. 2d 531, 559 (¶ 87) (Miss. 2003). 22 ¶43. Further, the weight and credibility of expert testimony is to be determined by the trier of fact. Ladnier v. State, 878 So. 2d 926, 931 (¶ 16) (Miss. 2004). When, as here, the finder of fact is faced with expert opinion testimony based on facts not within the personal knowledge of the expert, that the undergirding facts are not within the personal knowledge of the expert goes to the overall weight of the expert’s opinions. See McCaffrey v. Puckett, 784 So. 2d 197, 203 (¶ 19) (Miss. 2001). Accordingly, it stands to reason that the finder of fact must be able to examine the underlying facts to make the necessary credibility determinations. To the extent the trial judge examined the testimony of nontestifying individuals, which was included in the expert’s report and about which the expert testified at the hearing, to determine the credibility of Dr. Storer’s expert opinion and the weight to give said opinion, we hold that the trial judge did not err. ¶44. As to the admission of the report in general, Dr. Storer was called to testify and testified in detail about his report, his opinions, and the information gleaned from interviewing Brown’s family and friends. Brown had a sufficient opportunity to crossexamine Dr. Storer. In a fact-intensive situation in which expert testimony is necessary, such as in determining mental retardation, the circuit judge could benefit from having the expert reports available after the hearing. The judge, noting that it was a bench trial with no jury, acknowledged the argument that expert reports contain hearsay and assured counsel that he would designate the portions of the report relied upon. The judge also admitted Dr. Zimmerman’s expert report. “Our well-established standard of review for reviewing the trial court’s admissibility of evidence, including expert testimony, is abuse of discretion.” Jones 23 v. State, 918 So. 2d 1220, 1223 (¶ 9) (Miss. 2005) (citations omitted). Where the admission of the evidence did not result in prejudice to the accused, we will affirm the trial court. Id. There is no evidence that the trial judge relied on anything from Dr. Storer’s report that was not presented at the hearing. We cannot say that admitting the report resulted in prejudice to Brown. Thus, we hold that the judge did not err in admitting the expert report in the instant case. B. Substance Abuse ¶45. Brown also asserts that the trial court relied on a statement in the expert report that Dr. Storer conceded at the Atkins hearing was not true as a basis for finding that Brown did not have a significant adaptive functioning deficit in the area of work. Brown is referring to the trial judge’s conclusion that Brown’s numerous jobs and failure to hold a job “could clearly be explained just as easily as a substance abuse problem as a mental retardation indicator.” Brown claims that the judge improperly relied on the following statement from Dr. Storer’s report: “Mr. Brown had occupational difficulties in that he was fired from several jobs. During our interview of him, however, he reported that he was usually fired as a result of substance use influencing his performance and not because he was unable to do the work.” Brown claims that the judge improperly relied on the foregoing statement because, at the Atkins hearing, Dr. Storer said that statement was not true. The record does not support Brown’s claim. 24 ¶46. At the hearing, Dr. Storer clarified that Brown did not say “I was fired for substance abuse.” Rather, in response to Dr. Storer’s question about why Brown stopped working for Miller and Budweiser, Brown’s exact words were: I think, I think I quit the first time, got into it with supervisor the second time . . . got fired at Budweiser . . . guess my performance wasn’t good enough . . . I was supposed to be a merchandiser . . . switching beer around . . . oldest stuff in the front . . . wasn’t going to the stores (laughing) getting drunk! The quote from Brown was in Dr. Storer’s report and was read verbatim at the hearing. Dr. Storer also testified that Brown had told him “that many of his employments were [a]ffected by his substance use.” Dr. Storer’s statement in the report that “[Brown] reported that he was usually fired as a result of substance use influencing his performance and not because he was unable to do the work” was not contradicted by his testimony at the hearing. Certainly, Brown’s own statement that he got fired because he was getting drunk instead of going to work indicates that he was fired because substance abuse influenced his performance. ¶47. The experts and lay witnesses presented a significant amount of evidence about Brown’s substance abuse, which began as early as age six or seven. The trial judge, as the finder of fact, who had the opportunity to hear all of the witnesses’ testimony and review the evidence, could have determined that Brown’s own admission that he was getting drunk instead of going to work, coupled with the testimony about his substance abuse, could have been a reason for his being fired. That determination could have been reached without the report being admitted into evidence, because Brown’s quote was read verbatim at the hearing. There is no indication from the record that the trial judge relied on any statement that was not true or was improperly admitted into evidence. 25 ¶48. The judge noted the possibility that Brown had a commercial driver’s license, that Brown had received job training, and that there was no indication that Brown could not perform the functions of his jobs. Thus, it seemed more likely that substance abuse was the cause of his problems. Further, the judge stated that just because a person’s having many jobs can be an indicator of a deficit in adaptive functioning does not mean it unequivocally establishes an adaptive functioning deficit. Where the evidence and testimony indicate that other causes for having many jobs are present, the court has the discretion to weigh all of the evidence and make that determination. The issue is without merit.