Opinion ID: 2361677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the testimony of the medical examiner

Text: Finally Ferola asserts that the conviction of first-degree sexual assault cannot stand because the medical examiner who performed the autopsy did not speak in terms of strong probability. Without the medical examiner's testimony, defendant argues, the evidence was not sufficient to warrant submission of the count to the jury. The evidence in the case established, without question, that the Warwick victim was sexually assaulted, that penetration had occurred, and that it was accomplished by force. It is not disputed that the evidence from other witnesses as well as the observations of the medical examiner were properly admitted. The victim was found, bound hand and foot, twice gagged, her face and body bruised, her ribs were fractured, and her brassiere, stained with blood, removed. Her panties had been ripped away at the crotch and were shoved up above her waist. The tissues of the vagina were bruised and torn, and there were sperm in the vagina. This mass of evidence alone warranted the conclusion by the jury that first-degree sexual assault had occurred. The state medical examiner who performed the autopsy of the victim was qualified as an expert in forensic pathology without objection by defendant. However, Ferola maintains that the medical examiner should not have been permitted to state his opinion that the victim's vaginal injuries were consistent with force because the opinion itself has probative value only if it speaks in terms of probability or strong probability. The record reveals that the trial justice asked the medical examiner the following question to which the defense objected: The Court: Doctor, do you have an opinion based on your training and the examination of the body, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to whether or not your findings to the bruises in the vaginal area are consistent with forced sexual intercourse? At this juncture a side-bar conference was held during which defense counsel asserted that under State v. Adams, 481 A.2d 718, 727 (R.I. 1984), there was nothing in the medical examiner's background to suggest he was an expert in gynecology or an expert in the elements of first degree sexual assault. In short, defendant's counsel at trial objected specifically to the medical examiner's qualifications. Appellate counsel now asserts that the wording of the medical examiner's opinion failed to speak in terms of probability, and only used the phrase consistent with. Our examination of the record, however, indicates that Ferola's trial counsel made no objection to the phrase consistent with. We will not review objections to evidence when those objections were not raised at trial. State v. Dionne, 442 A.2d 876, 886 (R.I. 1982); State v. Duggan, 414 A.2d 788, 791 (R.I. 1980). Consequently, this specific issue is not before us on appeal. However, the physician's testimony certainly was admissible, even though by itself it would not have established that a sexual assault had occurred. That testimony constituted one portion of a mass of compelling evidence which excluded all reasonable doubt of the brutal assault and murder which had been perpetrated upon the elderly victim. For the reasons stated, the defendant's appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgments of conviction appealed from are affirmed, and the papers in the case are remanded to the Superior Court.        -1349