Opinion ID: 1568022
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Voir Dire of Dr. Hayne.

Text: ¶ 18. Nelson argues that the trial court erred by refusing to permit him to voir dire Dr. Hayne, the State's pathologist. The State argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by accepting Dr. Hayne as an expert. Further, the State argues that Nelson chose not to voir dire Dr. Hayne on his opinion about the physical findings, and Nelson had an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Hayne on the cause of death. After a review of the record, this Court agrees with the State. ¶ 19. Nelson first objected to Dr. Hayne's qualifications after Dr. Hayne testified about his educational and work background. His objection related to whether Dr. Hayne was qualified to give certain opinions based on the specially concurring opinion authored by former Justice Oliver Diaz in Edmonds v. State, 955 So.2d 787 (Miss.2007). Since Dr. Hayne had yet to provide his opinion in Nelson's case, the trial court overruled the objection. The following exchange occurred: By [Defense]: Well, Your Honor, I understand he's testified to [his education and experience], but I also understand he has been denieduhto give certain opinions in certain cases, and I believe most recently in Edmonds v. State . By the Court: I'm familiar with that case. I'm familiar with Judge Diaz, too. By [Defense]: Yes, sir. By the Court: And I'm familiar with what [Justice Diaz] says and-and the law is that that does not disqualify a person from beinggiving an expert opinion. It only goes to his credibility. By [Defense]: I understand that. By the Court: Well, what do you want to go at? By [Defense]: Your Honor, I would like to By the Court: He's not given any opinion in thisin this case yet for you to cross-examine him on, and until he starts giving an opinion, you're overruled. ¶ 20. After Dr. Hayne testified about his physical findings concerning the victim, the trial court gave Nelson an opportunity to voir dire Dr. Hayne on his qualifications. However, defense counsel declined to voir dire him at that time. Dr. Hayne then testified about the cause of death. Dr. Hayne ultimately determined that in his opinion, Shannon was strangled, however, he died because of suffocation by the bag and tape around his head. ¶ 21. Later, Nelson again objected to Dr. Hayne's testimony. When the jury was excused, the trial court inquired whether defense counsel wanted to voir dire Dr. Hayne about his qualifications. Defense counsel responded and stated: No, sir. I'm voir direingwhat I want to discuss wasit's based on the autopsy report we have been provided that we anticipate Doctor Hayne's testimony is going to be the drag marks indicate that he was alive when he was dragged from the house, which would be evidence of kidnapping. After more discussion, the trial court asked defense counsel what he proposed to do. Defense counsel stated, Well, what procedure I'm suggesting is for them to finish eliciting the testimony from him regarding what that opinion is. ¶ 22. Thereafter, the jury returned and the State continued questioning Dr. Hayne. Dr. Hayne testified about the linear, straight-line abrasions on the victim's body. Dr. Hayne testified that, in his opinion, the contusions and bruises on the victim's back were made while Shannon was alive. In addition, Dr. Hayne testified that the long, linear marks on Shannon's body were consistent with dragging or sliding the body. ¶ 23. Defense counsel cross-examined Dr. Hayne about the cause of death. Dr. Hayne explained the medical differences between strangulation and suffocation. In addition, Dr. Hayne testified that the bag around Shannon's face was relatively tightly taped, however, a small amount of air could have entered the bag. When asked whether a person would survive more than a couple minutes after the bag was placed over his face, Dr. Hayne testified that a person could survive [m]aybe a minute longercouple minutes longer, but certainly, it's a very short period of time, counselor. Counsel also briefly questioned Dr. Hayne about photographs which he stated showed evidence of defensive wounds on the victim. ¶ 24. Following cross-examination, the trial court again gave Nelson the opportunity to voir dire Dr. Hayne. However, defense counsel decided that he no longer wanted to pursue his former request to question Dr. Hayne. ¶ 25. In Edmonds, this Court reversed and remanded Edmonds's murder conviction. Edmonds, 955 So.2d at 799. Dr. Hayne testified to a two-shooter theory wherein he stated that it was more than likely that two people fired the shot that killed the victim, Joey Fulgham. Edmonds, 955 So.2d at 791. The majority opinion determined that Dr. Hayne was qualified to proffer expert opinions in forensic pathology however a court should not give such an expert carte blanche to proffer any opinion he chooses. Id. at 792. The majority held, in part, that Dr. Hayne's two-shooter theory was not admissible. Id. ¶ 26. Justice Diaz's specially concurring opinion criticized Dr. Hayne on two issues. First, the separate opinion questioned Dr. Hayne's certifications. Edmonds, 955 So.2d at 802. (Diaz, P.J., specially concurring). Second, the separate opinion questioned the number of autopsies performed by Dr. Hayne. Id. While the specially concurring opinion questioned Dr. Hayne's credentials, the majority held that Dr. Hayne is qualified to proffer expert opinions in forensic pathology. Id. at 792. ¶ 27. We find that the trial court did not err by not allowing Nelson to voir dire Dr. Hayne. As the record reflects, the trial court initially denied Nelson's objection to Dr. Hayne's qualifications because he had not yet testified to his opinion in the case. Thereafter, the trial court gave Nelson numerous opportunities to voir dire Dr. Hayne on his opinions. However, Nelson declined to voir dire Dr. Hayne on a few occasions, and following cross-examination of the doctor, Nelson withdrew his request. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.