Opinion ID: 1577692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 39

Heading: Dr Hunsaker

Text: Appellant next complains that Dr. Hunsaker, a forensic pathologist who testified as an expert for the Commonwealth, was improperly permitted to answer questions outside his realm of expertise. The trial court relayed the following question submitted by a juror: Can the manner in which a person is murdered reflect the mood of the person committing the crime? After a bit of confusion about the wording of the question, Dr. Hunsaker replied with a simple yes. There was no contemporaneous objection. Appellant relies on our holding in Johnson, where Dr. Hunsaker was asked questions about psychological profiling and the phenomenon of overkill. 103 S.W.3d at 695. We agreed with the trial court's finding regarding Dr. Hunsaker's qualifications: Dr. Hunsaker, by his own acknowledgement, was not properly qualified to testify on `overkill.' He is a forensic pathologist without special qualifications in psychological profiling. Id. Here, however, Dr. Hunsaker was not asked to give specialized testimony involving expertise in psychology. Dr. Hunsaker was asked whether the method of killing can reflect the killer's mood, which he answered in the affirmative without explanation. He was not asked to analyze the manner of Horton's murder, in particular, or to give an opinion about the mood of Horton's killer. The simple fact that such psychological profiling does exist is well within Dr. Hunsaker's area of expertise. There was no abuse of discretion.