Opinion ID: 2570523
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Report by the state's expert regarding bite marks on the victim's body

Text: Collman contends that the district court erroneously admitted a report made by the state's forensic expert. Dr. Raymond D. Rawson, the state's expert witness, prepared a forensic report, Exhibit 96, concluding that Damian suffered nine separate bite marks and with a high degree of confidence that Collman was the biter. Dr. Rawson testified to this opinion at trial. The defense utilized the report to cross-examine Dr. Rawson and even showed a photograph in the report to the jury. Based on this use of the report by Collman, the State asked that the whole report be admitted. The defense objected, arguing that Dr. Rawson had not testified to all portions of the report. Specifically, Dr. Rawson's report referred to nine bite marks on Damian's body, while Dr. Rawson's testimony focused on only three of the most severe and obvious bites. The district court admitted the report into evidence. Collman argues that the district court erroneously admitted the entire report. We conclude that this argument has no merit pursuant to NRS 47.120(1), which provides: When any part of a writing or recorded statement is introduced by a party, he may be required at that time to introduce any other part of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other relevant parts. See also Domingues v. State, 112 Nev. 683, 693-94, 917 P.2d 1364, 1372 (1996). Here, Collman in effect introduced portions of the report during cross-examination of Dr. Rawson. Under NRS 47.120(1), the State was permitted to introduce any other relevant parts. The entire report was relevant to the case because evidence of bite marks tended to prove that Damian was an abused child. Further, Dr. Rawson's testimony referred to his overall conclusion that nine bite marks were present and that Collman caused them all; therefore, contrary to Collman's contention, the entire report contained information to which Dr. Rawson testified. We conclude that the district court did not err in admitting the report.