Opinion ID: 1605140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of Dr. Steven Hayne

Text: ¶ 14. Lima claims that the trial court erred when it allowed Dr. Hayne to testify as an expert. It is well-settled that the admission of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Furthermore, this Court will not reverse a trial court's decision to admit expert testimony `unless we conclude that the discretion was arbitrary and clearly erroneous, amounting to an abuse of discretion.' Bishop v. State, 982 So.2d 371, 380 (Miss.2008) (citations omitted). ¶ 5. Lima asserts that the trial court erred in accepting Dr. Hayne as an expert, because his work load was too heavy, he lacked reliability, his work lacked peer review, and he was not board-certified by the American Board of Pathology in forensic pathology. [2] ¶ 16. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702 is the standard for the admission of expert testimony in Mississippi, and it states: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Miss. R. Evid. 702. ¶ 17. It is clear from the record that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it accepted Dr. Hayne as an expert. Dr. Hayne's testimony as to his medical training and experience within the field, which included more than twenty years of experience within the State of Mississippi, exhibited sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education for the trial judge to qualify him as an expert. ¶ 18. We find nothing in the record to suggest that Dr. Hayne's testimony was not based on sufficient facts or data. Dr. Hayne's post-mortem examination revealed that Houck's body contained numerous lacerations and abrasions, and that the fatal injury occurred when two slash wounds became confluent and ran horizontally across Houck's neck. Dr. Hayne testified to that effect at trial, and the photographs entered into evidence supported his conclusions. ¶ 19. Additionally, nothing in the record suggests that Dr. Hayne's testimony was the product of unreliable principles and methods. Lima claims that Dr. Hayne's testimony was unreliable because he performs many more autopsies annually than the number recommended by the authors of Forensic Pathology. However, Dr. Hayne explained that he does not take vacations and works nearly every day of the year, for approximately sixteen hours a day. He explained that performing a large number of autopsies is viewed by some as necessary in order to remain competent in the field. Dr. Hayne also testified that there was no deterioration of his intellectual or physical performance. The State points out that, while Dr. Hayne's work in this particular case was not peer-reviewed, his work in other cases has been. Finally, nothing in the record suggests that Dr. Hayne did not apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case, nor does Lima point to any specific application errors. ¶ 20. Thus, based on the foregoing analysis, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it accepted Dr. Hayne as an expert.