Opinion ID: 1817269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: did expert testimony at the penalty phase improperly usurp the role of the jury?

Text: During the sentencing phase Dr. McLees testified as to the pain associated with the manner in which Gurley died. The trial court overruled defense counsel's objection that McLees was talking about emotions about which he was not qualified to discuss. We are of the opinion McLees' testimony was relevant to the issue of pain suffered by the victim, which was a crucial element of aggravating circumstance (5)(h): Whether the killing was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. We observe further that McLees testified only as to medical facts, the pain involved in death by strangulation or suffocation, and not as to conclusions of law, whether the killing was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel. The latter determination was left for the jury. For these reasons we are of the opinion the court did not err in permitting McLees' testimony on this issue.