Opinion ID: 2466439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: testimony of dr. william smock

Text: Dr. Smock is not on the staff of Audubon Hospital, but is an assistant medical examiner trained in clinical forensics. He personally examined the victim prior to his death and reviewed the medical records and laboratory reports. He concurred in Dr. Bhupalam's diagnosis of hypoglycemia due to introduction of insulin from an outside source. He also read from selected entries in the medical records and Appellant claims that such violated the proscription against hearsay. However, the medical records were properly introduced under KRE 803(6). If the entries read by Dr. Smock were not otherwise inadmissible, Appellant was no more prejudiced by the fact that the doctor read from the records than she was by the fact that the records were introduced in the first place. Even if any specific entries in the records were inadmissible, Dr. Smock could have reasonably relied on those entries in forming his expert opinion as to the diagnosis and cause of the victim's condition. KRE 703(a). If so, it would have been within the discretion of the trial judge to permit disclosure of the information to the jury (accompanied by an appropriate admonition, if requested), assuming the judge determined that the information was trustworthy, necessary to illuminate testimony, and unprivileged. KRE 703 (b). The applicability of KRE 703 (a) and (b) to this evidence was not addressed at the first trial, because the trial judge deemed the hospital records to be admissible in toto. It was error to permit Dr. Smock to read from inadmissible entries without addressing the factual determinations required by KRE 703 (b). See KRE 104 (a). This error should not recur upon retrial. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed upon Appellant are reversed and this action is remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court for a new trial. STEPHENS, C.J., and JOHNSTONE and STUMBO, JJ., concur. GRAVES, J., dissents by separate opinion, with LAMBERT and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., joining that dissent.