Opinion ID: 1589788
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Mishandling of State's Witness

Text: ¶ 140. Goff claims that during the testimony of Dr. Stephen Hayne, counsel failed to object to clearly irrelevant and prejudicial testimony concerning the amount of pain suffered by Brandy. As Dr. Hayne was testifying at the culpability phase, such evidence had no relevance to the cause and manner of death, according to Goff. ¶ 141. This Court, has stated that [d]iscussion of pain by a forensic pathologist is admissible. Mitchell v. State, 792 So.2d 192, 215-16 (Miss.2001); McGowen v. State, 859 So.2d 320, 335 (Miss.2003) (quoting Holland II, 705 So.2d 307, 341(Miss.1997)). See also Whittington v. State, 523 So.2d 966, 976 (Miss.1988) (allowing forensic testimony that a victim suffered a fatal heart attack as a result of trauma and stress induced by a beating and robbery). [I]n Mississippi, a forensic pathologist may testify as to what produced [a victim's] injuries ... and what trauma such an injury would produce. McGowen, 859 So.2d at 335 (quoting Holland II, 705 So.2d at 341). ¶ 142. Because this type of testimony is admissible at trial, Goff is unable to make the requisite showing of deficient performance under Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064-65, 80 L.Ed.2d at 693-95, and his claim is without merit. ¶ 143. Goff also claims that during cross-examination, his counsel went from allowing prejudicial testimony to eliciting such testimony. In particular, Goff claims that counsel, having failed to interview Dr. Hayne before he testified, elicited testimony that there was no evidence of old injuries to Brandy, [28] as well as testimony concerning the removal of organs from Brandy's body. ¶ 144. In support of his argument that these actions by counsel amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, Goff relies on a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Fisher v. Gibson, 282 F.3d 1283 (10th Cir.2002). Where an attorney accidentally brings out testimony that is damaging because he has failed to prepare, his conduct cannot be called a strategic choice: an event produced by the happenstance of counsel's uninformed and reckless cross-examination cannot be called a `choice' at all. Id. at 1296; see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (counsel's failure to investigate must be product of a reasonable decision that the particular investigation is unnecessary or it is deficient). ¶ 145. This Court has not adopted the rule espoused by the Tenth Circuit. Rather, this Court has gone only so far as to comment that a defense attorney's failure to interview a pathologist, while not duty-bound to [so], was surprising. Holland v. State, 587 So.2d 848, 867 (Miss.1991). ¶ 146. While defense counsel's actions may have been deficient, Goff has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced as a result of the testimony elicited. This point of error is without merit.