Opinion ID: 1669326
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: foundation for medical examiner's testimony

Text: Cavin submits that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the foundation for the Medical Examiner's testimony concerning the number of blows to the decedent's head. Although the murder weapon was never found, Dr. Violet Hnilica, a forensic pathologist with the Arkansas Medical Examiner, testified that she believed with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Todd's head received blunt trauma at least five or ten times. She formed her opinion based upon the appearance of the wounds. Cavin claims that he objected to this conclusion based upon insufficient foundation, contending that forming an opinion as to the cause of death without possessing the actual weapon used was mere speculation. Yet, the record reveals that Cavin's actual objection was as follows: Q. Do you have an opinion about how many times this body was hit? MR. PRICE: Objection, Your Honor. Foundation. THE COURT: All right. If it's an expert opinion, counsel, you must keep it within the framework. BY MISS LODGE: Q. Do you have an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many times this head area, just the head area that we're speaking about, received blunt trauma? A. Well, the back of the head I counted at least five, and the front of the head at least five, so I'd say at least 10. MR. PRICE: May we approach the bench, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. (THEREUPON, out of the hearing of the jury, the following conversation took place between counsel and the Court.) MR. PRICE: My objection to foundation is that they have not laid any foundation as to what kind of weapon it was that caused this. In other words, if she has 10 lacerations, it could have been something with five prongs that hit him with two blows. It's rank speculation without a foundation as to what type of weapon was used and whether she's compared it. THE COURT: All right. That's going to be overruled. At trial, Cavin's objection to foundation was that the State had not laid any foundation as to what kind of weapon caused the wounds. The State contends that Cavin failed to object on this point. Although we hold that Cavin's objection was sufficient to preserve this issue for consideration on appeal, we disagree that the trial court erred in overruling the objection. A proper foundation for Dr. Hnilica's testimony as to the number of blows inflicted on the victim was established. She first described the victim's head injuries in detail and then proceeded to explain how she could determine from these injuries the approximate amount of blunt trauma inflicted. Based on this testimony, we hold that a proper foundation was established.