Opinion ID: 1577692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 40

Heading: Qualification of Experts

Text: Appellant complains that the trial court improperly qualified four expert witnesses in front of the jury. Of course, trial courts must be cautious in deeming a witness an expert. If the jury is so informed such a conclusion obviously enhances the credibility of that witness in the eyes of the jury. All such rulings should be made outside the hearing of the jury and there should be no declaration that the witness is an expert. Luttrell v. Commonwealth, 952 S.W.2d 216, 218 (Ky.1997). Our review of the record reveals that three of these witnesses were not referred to as experts by the trial court or the Commonwealth. [10] In the case of Dr. Hunsaker, the Commonwealth did ask the trial court to allow him to give his opinions and his expert testimony. Nonetheless, we find this minor, unpreserved error to be harmless. Dr. Hunsaker's testimony was necessary mainly to establish time of death. However, the time frame of death he provided fit as equally into the defense theory that Burton committed the murder as it did the Commonwealth's theory. Indeed, the defense favorably referenced not only his testimony in closing arguments, but also his qualifications and reliability. For this reason, we discern no prejudice to Appellant's substantial rights. RCr 9.24.