Opinion ID: 2006788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of testimony regarding possibility of self-inflicted wound.

Text: The county medical examiner testified concerning the autopsy she performed on the deceased. Among other things, she stated that the examination of the deceased revealed a stab wound in the upper left side and that the cause of death was internal hemorrhage due to a stab wound in the heart. On cross-examination by defense counsel, the witness was asked whether, assuming the deceased had stabbed himself in the chest, there was anything in the direction of the wound that was inconsistent with a self-inflicted wound. The trial court sustained an objection to the form of the question. The state contends the objection was properly sustained because there was no foundation in the record to support a theory of suicide. The general rule in criminal cases concerning hypothetical questions put to an expert, on direct examination, is that the question must be based on facts in evidence. ... A hypothetical question put to an expert on direct examination must be based on facts in evidence, or conform to tendencies of the evidence. An expert cannot be asked as to a hypothesis having no foundation in the evidence in the case.... 2 Wharton's, Anderson, Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), p. 351, sec. 523. However, the rule is not applicable to questions eliciting the opinions of experts on cross-examination. On cross-examination, the expert may be asked for an opinion on other possible theories, and assuming facts not in evidence. ... The adverse party may then on cross-examination submit to the expert questions based on the theories for which he contends, and the case is then submitted to the jury to determine what theory, if any, is warranted by the evidence. . . . The limitation that hypothetical questions must be restricted to matters in evidence does not apply to the use of such questions on cross-examination when the purpose is to test the value and accuracy of the opinions expressed. The range of such examination is left largely to the discretion of the trial court. 2 Wharton's Anderson, Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), supra, pp. 352, 353, sec. 523. [1] This court has held that greater latitude and liberty are allowed in the cross-examination of an expert witness and that the degree and manner of cross-examination in criminal cases are matters lying largely in the discretion of the trial court. Simpson v. State (1966), 32 Wis. 2d 195, 145 N. W. 2d 206. However, assuming, without so deciding, that the witness' answer to the question was erroneously excluded, the error was harmless. There was no evidence to support a finding that Roedl took his own life, and there was an abundance of evidence supporting the jury's verdict of murder. Thus, the excluded testimony had no effect upon the outcome of the case.