Opinion ID: 1901599
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bite-Mark Identification

Text: ¶ 23. In addition, Brewer challenges the reliability of the bite-mark evidence presented against him as well as the credibility of the expert witness, Dr. Michael West, who presented it. In support of this claim, Brewer presents the affidavit of Charles Michael Bowers, D.D.S., along with the draft of an unpublished article outlining the shortcomings of bite-mark evidence and the error rate as determined by the American Board of Forensic Odontology. He urges that this Court should not tolerate a science that, as Brewer claims, is more likely than not to identify the wrong suspect. ¶ 24. The State responds that, again, Brewer is attempting to raise a new claim on motion for rehearing. The State further asserts that even if this claim could be properly presented to this Court on a motion for rehearing he is further procedurally barred from doing so. As the State points out, this claim was fully litigated at trial, reviewed on direct appeal, and is, therefore, barred from reconsideration by Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3). ¶ 25. This Court has previously held that bite-mark evidence is admissible in Mississippi. Brooks v. State, 748 So.2d 736, 739 (Miss.1999) (We now take the opportunity to state affirmatively that bitemark identification evidence is admissible in Mississippi.). Even if this Court were compelled by Brewer's argument, it would seem highly inappropriate to overrule wellestablished precedent based solely on an affidavit and a draft of an unpublished article. ¶ 26. Moreover, in Brewer's direct appeal, this Court previously held that [t]he record evidence shows that Dr. West possessed the knowledge, skill, experience, training and education necessary to qualify as an expert in forensic odontology. Brewer v. State, 725 So.2d at 126. At that time, this Court held that Brewer's challenges to Dr. West's testimony went to weight and credibility to be assigned his testimony by the jurynot his qualifications. Id. Brewer's current arguments are simply another attempt to attack Dr. West's qualifications. Just as before, these new challenges should go to weight and credibility to be assigned by the jury. Furthermore, Brewer's attempt to raise this issue again is procedurally barred pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3). ¶ 27. Nevertheless, if the trial court determines that a new trial is warranted as a result of the newly discovered DNA evidence, then Brewer is free to put forth such evidence as the trial court deems admissible at that time in order to discount the reliability of bite-mark evidence and the credibility of Dr. Michael West.