Opinion ID: 1928017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the footwear

Text: The Medical Examiner's report said, among other things: In the lower part of the neck in the front there was a patterned mark, an abrasion that went across the front of the lower neck. It had a somewhat herringbone appearance. A similar pattern was also seen in the back of the neck at the lower part where the muscles of the shoulders come together at the lower part of the neck. This served to create an area of contention in this case. Bloodsworth says: Over repeated objections by defense counsel, the prosecution introduced evidence comparing shoeprints from a pair of tennis shoes which the prosecution claimed belonged to Appellant with photographs purporting to show marks inflicted upon the victim's body. The evidence should not have been admitted because the prosecution witness was not qualified as an expert, a proper foundation for the use and admission of the photographs was not laid, the method of comparison used was not shown to be reliable or generally accepted in the field, the tennis shoes were not shown to belong to or have been worn by Appellant, and the shoe prints were not sufficiently distinct to permit a valid comparison. Bloodsworth introduced evidence from an expert to the effect that the seized shoes in question were five half sizes too small for Bloodsworth. The evidence was such that the State was forced in closing argument to concede that the shoeprint evidence does not point to the Defendant, and we candidly admit that to you all, but neither does it eliminate him, nor does it point to anyone else. It is just neutral evidence. In this circumstance we doubt that this evidence will be introduced on the remand.