Opinion ID: 1433861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Testimony of Criminalist Gregory Laskowski

Text: Utilizing photographs of the crime scene, Criminalist Laskowski testified regarding the various positions of Mincy's and Huffstuttler's bodies when they were shot. Based on blood spatters and drips depicted in the photos, he indicated one shot was to Mincy's body while in a fetal-like position on its left side; as to the others, his body was in a vertical position. Laskowski also concluded Mincy was moving at a relatively rapid pace after being initially wounded. With respect to Huffstuttler, he determined that for several shots the body was prone and not moving. Defendant now contends this evidence was inadmissible because the witness was not qualified to render an expert opinion (Evid.Code, ง 720) and because he did not personally investigate the crime scene. He further asserts it should have been excluded pursuant to Evidence Code section 352. Since he failed to make these objections at trial, the issue is waived. (Evid.Code, ง 353, subd. (a); see People v. Rodriquez (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 770, 776, 79 Cal.Rptr. 240.) We also reject defendant's related claim counsel was incompetent for failing to challenge the evidence; any objection would have been properly overruled. Evidence Code section 720 provides that a person may testify as an expert if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him, ( id., subd. (a)) which may be shown by any otherwise admissible evidence, including his own testimony. ( Id., subd.(b).) The trial court's determination of whether a witness qualifies as an expert is a matter of discretion and will not be disturbed absent a showing of manifest abuse. ( People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 357, 233 Cal.Rptr. 368, 729 P.2d 802.) `Where a witness has disclosed sufficient knowledge of the subject to entitle his opinion to go to the jury, the question of the degree of his knowledge goes more to the weight of the evidence than its admissibility.' ( Seneris v. Haas (1955) 45 Cal.2d 811, 833,291 P.2d 915.) The record establishes Laskowski was fully qualified to testify based on his educational background in biochemistry and serology and his training as a criminalist for 13 years, including attending and giving seminars in blood-spatter analysis and crime scene investigation. He had also testified as an expert witness on numerous prior occasions. Given his expertise, Laskowski's testimony was not cumulative. Utilizing his knowledge of blood spatters and drips, he was better able to describe the particulars of what occurred during the shooting of Huffstuttler and Mincy than any photographic depiction of their bodies. For example, he concluded from the spatter evidence that Mincy was moving around after he was first shot and before he fell into a fetal position, where he was shot one more time. He also explained that the large pool of blood around Huffstuttler's body indicated he was prone and not moving when he received the final shots. As discussed in other contexts, this evidence was relevant to the issues of intent and premeditation and deliberation. The photographs Laskowski referred to adequately illustrated his testimony; therefore, the fact he did not personally examine the crime scene was a matter of evidentiary weight. Since his testimony was admissible on all grounds, counsel had no basis for objecting.