Opinion ID: 1887725
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Detective Hose's Testimony

Text: Appellant also argues that trial counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of trial for failing to object to the opinions of Detective Hose ... regarding the extent and nature of the wounds to Ascensio and Lugo because the witness was not qualified to render such opinions nor were there foundations for such testimony. Appellant's Brief at 19. Appellant argues that, during the penalty phase, Detective Hose was able to offer several opinions on the manner in which Ascensio and Lugo died without being qualified by the trial court as an expert. Appellant points to Detective Hose's testimony that: 1) blood covering Ascensio's undergarments was indicative that the cloth was grinded [sic] into her face, N.T. 01/20/2000, 28-29; 2) It was a very, very violent scene, id. at 29; and 3) she did not die a quick death, id. Also, Detective Hose testified that the position in which he found Ascensio was a staged position. She did not  she wasn't  she didn't die like that after the struggle had occurred. Id. at 31. Detective Hose's testimony that Ascensio's undergarments were ground into her face, that the scene was very violent, and that Ascensio did not die a quick death were not unduly prejudicial. As described above, the proper evidence provided by Dr. Funke was far more damaging than Detective Hose's brief comments. Dr. Funke testified at great length during both the guilt and penalty phases of trial that Ascensio's injuries were indicative of a long, drawn-out attack intended to inflict substantial amounts of pain. This testimony alone was sufficient for the jury to find torture as an aggravating circumstance. Therefore, even if Appellant's claim had merit and trial counsel had no reasonable basis for his failure to object, we hold that Appellant cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of the ineffectiveness test because no reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the penalty phase would have been different but for this testimony. Further, we find no merit in Appellant's claim regarding counsel's failure to object to Detective Hose's testimony that Ascensio's body was in a staged position at the penalty hearing. Our case law demonstrates that Detective Hose was qualified to give this testimony. See Commonwealth v. Allison, 550 Pa. 4, 703 A.2d 16, 18 (1997) (holding that lay witnesses are permitted to testify to the apparent physical condition or appearance of another). Detective Hose also testified to the staged position of Ascensio's body at the guilt phase of trial. N.T., 01/14/2000, 755-56. Appellant's counsel objected on the basis that the testimony was beyond Detective Hose's expertise, and the trial court properly overruled his objection. Id. at 756. Therefore, counsel also had no reason to renew his objection to this testimony at the penalty phase. Further, Detective Hose provided a foundation for his conclusion of a staged position. He testified that Ascensio's body was found half-dressed, lying on her back with her arms at her sides, her head resting upon a pillow. In our view, the testimony provided sufficient foundation for Detective Hose's conclusion that the body was found in an apparently staged position.