Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Qualifications of Prosecution Expert

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his request to conduct a hearing pursuant to Evidence Code section 402 on the qualifications of the prosecution's forensic serologist, William Moore. The record reveals, however, that defendant never made such a request. Rather, he objected to the prosecution's attempt to pose a hypothetical question to Moore to establish that the pattern of semen on defendant's bed sheet was consistent with semen having been expectorated by the victim. At the sidebar hearing on defendant's objection, defense counsel disparaged Moore's qualifications but the reason he sought a 402 hearing was because he claimed the attempted hypothetical question amounted to a new theory. The trial court denied the request. It remarked, I'm satisfied he's an expert, and told defense counsel he was free to cross-examine Moore about any opinion that he had not previously included in his reports or prior testimony. Defendant's failure to have challenged Moore's expert qualifications in the trial court forfeits his claim. ( People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 162, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988 [defendant forfeited claim that expert was not qualified to testify to blood splatter evidence and crime scene reconstruction where his objection was to expert's qualification to estimate the amount of time elapsing from the start to finish of the attack on the victim].) The claim is also without merit. The trial court specifically found that Moore was an expert. That determination is governed by the deferential abuse of discretion standard and will not be disturbed absent a showing of manifest abuse. ( People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 322, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374.) Error regarding a witness's qualifications as an expert will be found only if the evidence shows that the witness `` clearly lacks qualification as an expert.'' ( People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 162, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988, quoting People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 828, 218 Cal.Rptr. 49, 705 P.2d 372.) Moore testified he had a bachelor's degree in biology and had worked in private industry as a chemist before joining the Los Angeles Police Department's Scientific Investigation Unit. He had spent seven years in the narcotics and alcohol analysis units before joining the serology unit in 1991. He had qualified as a serology expert on four previous occasions, but this was his first death penalty case. Defendant's complaints about those qualifications go to the weight of Moore's testimony, not its admissibility. ( Ibid. )