Opinion ID: 6356952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Dr. Chu's Testimony

Text: Dr. Chu was accepted at trial as an expert forensic pathologist upon stipulation of the parties and following voir dire of his qualifications before the jury. The jury was informed Dr. Chu had performed thousands of autopsies, but had no role in the autopsy of the victim in this matter other than his review of the autopsy photographs and the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Osbourne. Dr. Chu testified that he relied upon both the descriptions of the wounds in the report as well as the autopsy photographs in reaching his independent opinion regarding the cause of death. Dr. Chu testified he concluded [b]etween reviewing the photographs and the report the victim sustained four gunshot wounds. N.T. 11/5/14, at 123. Moreover, Dr. Chu used an exhibit at trial to show the jury where the bullets entered the victim's body. Id. at 124. We recognize that in Bullcoming , the High Court unquestionably held the right to confrontation is violated when the analyst who writes a report is not made available for cross-examination even if the report is wholly reliable. Bullcoming , 564 U.S. at 661 , 131 S.Ct. 2705 , citing Melendez-Diaz , 557 U.S. at 319 , 129 S.Ct. 2527 . The testimony of a surrogate analyst is insufficient to vindicate the right to confrontation  in such circumstances because cross-examination of the surrogate cannot expose any lapses or infirmities in the testing process or protocol employed by the analyst who authored the report. Id. at 662, 131 S.Ct. 2705 . Significantly, for purposes of our present analysis, the Bullcoming Court noted no argument was presented in that case that the surrogate analyst had any 'independent opinion' concerning Bullcoming's BAC. Id. Here, Dr. Chu testified his opinion four gunshot wounds caused the victim's death was his own independent opinion. Additionally, unlike Bullcoming , this is not a case where a surrogate witness simply read a testimonial report authored by another into the record. In addition to the autopsy report, Dr. Chu also examined autopsy photographs to support his own independent opinion as to the cause of death. Brown concedes the photographs were admissible evidence upon which Dr. Chu could properly rely to inform his opinion. Brown's Brief at 17 n.8. There is no Confrontation Clause concern over the opinions Dr. Chu expressed based on his own review of the autopsy photographs because the photos were not testimonial statements of an unavailable witness. Thus, Dr. Chu, a medical examiner with many years' experience, reached an independent opinion regarding the cause of death in part by examining data other than Dr. Osbourne's autopsy report. 11 Nevertheless, it is clear Dr. Chu relied, in part, on the facts contained in the report, such as the number and location of the bullet wounds and their trajectories through the victim's body as well as the report's descriptions of the internal damage caused by the projectiles to offer his independent conclusion regarding the cause of death and to state whether the wounds were consistent with the particular factual scenarios this case presented. 12 The autopsy report itself was inadmissible absent Dr. Osbourne's testimony. However, had the autopsy report not been introduced into evidence at trial, Pa.R.E. 703 and 705 would arguably permit precisely the type of expert opinion testimony given by Dr. Chu, which was based in part on the otherwise inadmissible facts and data contained in the report upon which experts in the field of forensic pathology would reasonably rely in forming an opinion.  Pa.R.E. 703 ; see also Ali , 10 A.3d at 306 ([A] medical expert who did not perform the autopsy may testify as to cause of death as long as the testifying expert is qualified and sufficiently informed[.]) (citation omitted). In any event, we decline to decide Brown's Rule 703 -based claims challenging the admissibility of Dr. Chu's testimony because, as the Commonwealth correctly points out, Brown never relied on Rule 703 as a basis for his objections to Dr. Chu's testimony or to the admissibility of the autopsy report at trial, and because discussion of the Rule is unnecessary as we decide the Confrontation Clause issue and affirm the Superior Court's judgment on other grounds. See Commonwealth v. Poplawski , 634 Pa. 517 , 130 A.3d 697 , 729 (2015) (issue waived on appeal in absence of contemporaneous, specific objection at trial); see also Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth , 623 Pa. 564 , 83 A.3d 901 , 987 (2013) (constitutional claim presents question of law over which Court's review is plenary and de novo ; this Court not constrained by intermediate court's reasoning but may affirm on any grounds if judgment supported by record). 13 Accordingly, we determine the factual scenario here differs from the factual scenario present in Bullcoming where the substitute analyst who testified at trial had no independent opinion regarding the defendant's BAC. Here Dr. Chu formed an independent conclusion and testified to that conclusion based on his own review of both the otherwise inadmissible facts and data contained in the report and the data provided by the autopsy photographs. Because Dr. Chu properly formed an independent opinion, and was available to be cross-examined regarding the basis of that opinion, we conclude there was no Confrontation Clause violation with respect to his opinion regarding the cause of death. Additionally, Dr. Chu's testimony was sufficient to satisfy the Commonwealth's evidentiary burden regarding the victim's cause of death. The Superior Court, however, also determined to the extent Dr. Chu acted as a surrogate for Dr. Osbourne and expressed Dr. Osbourne's opinion regarding the cause of death, Dr. Chu's testimony was similar to the surrogate testimony rejected by the Court in Bullcoming as violating the Confrontation Clause. Brown , 139 A.3d at 219-20 n.20. Specifically, the jury heard, through Dr. Chu, that Dr. Osbourne had also concluded the victim's cause of death was four gunshot wounds. We determine any error that arose from Dr. Chu's testimony revealing Dr. Osbourne's opinion as contained in the report was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Dr. Chu's independent opinion testimony satisfied the Confrontation Clause and the Commonwealth's  evidentiary burden of proof. See Young , 748 A.2d at 193 (error harmless where erroneously admitted evidence merely cumulative of other untainted evidence substantially similar to erroneously admitted evidence). 14