Opinion ID: 1736643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the lower court erred in excluding the testimony of william donald ates during the guilt and sentencing phases.

Text: Appellant offered as an expert witness William Donald Ates, a ballistics expert, for the purpose of explaining the physical evidence, especially the bullet wound to the back of the victim's head. The lower court refused to permit the expert to testify, even though he recognized Ates as an expert, on the ground that Ates' testimony would be cumulative to that of appellant West and merely represented and attempt by defense counsel to bolster their account of Phelps' shooting. The testimony of Ates was particularly relevant, since the State represented to the jury in opening statements, that it would show West's methodical execution of Phelps. Further, when asked by the district attorney on cross-examination to explain the bullet wound to the back of Phelps' head, West responded: Sir, I am no expert. All I can do is tell you what happened. Appellant asserts that, absent Ates, the only thing the jury heard from the defense was what happened (from West himself) and heard nothing as far as an explanation of how it physically was not inconsistent with the evidence. Compounding the refusal, the prosecution stated in closing arguments: There is no question that he actually killed. He says he didn't intend to kill. But how did Lt. Phelps get that bullet hole in the back of his head? Why was he shot three times in the head? Once behind the ear. You saw his demonstration here of how it happened. He says Lt. Phelps was coming at him. He is trying to make some sort of self-defense type of argument.       If Lt. Phelps was coming at him, how did he get shot back here? (Whereupon Mr. Vollor points to the back of his head). How did he get shock back there? He couldn't explain that. Why? Cause the way he described it is not the way it happened. Lt. Phelps was brutally murdered, shot in the back of the head.       Was this capital offense heinous, atrocious, or cruel? I say, Yes, it was. Again, I would point out the shot in the back of the head. There is much discussion about where the back of the head was; but you have seen the drawing, you can look at the pictures and describe once behind the ear. (R. 993, 997) Expert witnesses need not be infallible or possess the highest degree of skill, but, rather, only need have such skill, knowledge or experience in that field or calling as to make it appear that the opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for the truth. Henry v. State, 484 So.2d 1012 (Miss. 1986). A properly qualified and examined expert witness may provide the jury with the testimony which is potentially helpful in deciding the issues. Hollingsworth v. Bovaird Supply Co., 465 So.2d 311 (Miss. 1985). The law is now well established that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character, record, or any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986); Jordan v. State, 518 So.2d 1186 (Miss. 1987). Exclusion of the testimony of William Donald Ates in West II constitutes reversible error.