Opinion ID: 1348989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the trial court err in failing to grant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered pathology evidence?

Text: At the 60-1507 hearing Dr. William Eckert, a forensic pathologist, was a witness called by the defendant. Dr. Eckert stated he was not informed of the facts surrounding the death of the victim and the discovery of the body prior to performing the autopsy. Dr. Eckert testified that after reviewing the facts and his prior reports it was his opinion that the victim had been dead only two to four days at the time he performed the autopsy on June 5, 1982. Taylor contends this newly discovered pathology evidence establishes that the date of death occurred an additional two to four days prior to the discovery of the victim's body, a time for which Taylor has an alibi. At the trial in 1982, Dr. Eckert was a witness for the State. Dr. Eckert testified that the victim died within one to two hours of her last meal. The parties agree that Dr. Eckert was never asked during the 1982 trial his opinion as to the date of death, as his duty as a pathologist was to determine the cause of death. Dr. Eckert's 1990 testimony conflicted with his testimony at Taylor's preliminary hearing and the autopsy report he had previously prepared. The court noted Dr. Eckert's prior testimony at the preliminary hearing, where he was questioned by the State: Q. So based, to summarize then, you think that in all probability the ... margin or error could be from an hour to two hours?
Q. Of course you didn't get the opportunity to do this autopsy for a period of approximately a week afterwards the posted date of death. A. Yes sir. Q. Now, as far as the time of death, is that actually, is there some room for speculation on that just from your investigation? A. Well, I tell you. As far as my usual reply to that would be as a pathologist, my responsibility is cause of death and injury. The time of death is the responsibility of the coroner. Now, I saw the body. I don't know whether they had, I can't remember whether they had put it into the cooler. We have a refrigerator, refrigerated room there so I can't really be that knowledgeable. Also I'm not, I wasn't or I'm not familiar with the weather conditions and temperature that was at the time. Q. Let's presume since you can deal somewhat with hypotheticals this was a period of time which we had much rain in this area and that the body would have been exposed to that kind of weather. A. Yes. Q. Taking that into effect in your opinion, would that affect the decomposition of the body, the wet weather? A. Another fact you would have to have is the temperature. Q. Let's presume the temperature to be in the 80, 90 range. A. And also the shelter that the body was in. I did not see any pictures of the scene. Q. Let's further presume it was in the open covered by native grass in the area. A. I would say that this, and certainly the body looked like it had been dead for that period of time and that is consistent with the period of time that you mentioned. At the time of the 1990 60-1507 hearing Dr. Eckert stated there was no marked heart decomposition. Dr. Eckert's 1982 autopsy report specifically stated the victim's heart revealed marked decomposition and gas formation. Dr. David Clark, the coroner, had determined the date of death to be May 28, 1982. Dr. Clark testified at the 1990 60-1507 hearing that he told Dr. Eckert during a telephone conversation of the information given him by the police and his observations of the victim's body at the crime scene. Dr. Clark testified Eckert agreed with his (Clark's) determination that death had occurred on May 28, 1982. Dr. Clark further testified he believed Dr. Eckert's professional acumen had decreased, and since 1986-87 he had discontinued using Dr. Eckert's services. The district court determined Dr. Eckert was not a credible witness. The credibility of evidence is for the trial court's consideration. State v. Shepherd, 232 Kan. 614, 624, 657 P.2d 1112 (1983). Dr. Eckert did testify as to the post-mortem interval during the preliminary hearing, and even if he had not, he was available to be asked his opinion during the trial. The court determined the evidence was not newly discovered. The evidence presented at the 60-1507 hearing was not newly discovered and it could have been produced or pursued at the 1982 trial. Dr. Eckert's testimony was controverted by several witnesses, his prior testimony, and the autopsy report. It is not for us on appeal to interject our opinion of the evidence as being of any determinative nature. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the petitioner's burden of proof was not met and refusing to grant Taylor a new trial. VI. Were Taylor's due process rights violated because the State withheld exculpatory evidence? When Taylor's counsel inspected the evidence being held by the Salina Police Department in 1989, a tape recording of part of the autopsy made by Officer Barry Plunkett of the Salina Police Department was discovered. The recording was Plunkett's method of taking notes to make his written report. Taylor's counsel had the tape recording enhanced by the F.B.I. Taylor claims that critical evidence on the tape, which showed Dr. Eckert had determined that chicken in the victim's stomach was not fried and the stomach contained tomato, was withheld by the State. Taylor claims it is critical that Dr. Eckert is heard to say on the tape that the chicken eaten by the victim was not fried and there was a tomato in the victim's stomach contents. This newly discovered evidence is deemed critical because the Brookville Hotel, where the victim supposedly ate her last meal, served fried chicken and did not serve tomatoes. As to the chicken, the transcript of the tape provided by Taylor's attorney shows: [Unidentified female voice says:] Is that chicken? [Dr. Eckert:] Yes, yes, that's.... [Then, the female voice again:] Is it fried chicken? [Dr. Eckert:] Well, no, it's still soft. This is the only comment as to the chicken in the stomach during the autopsy. The autopsy tape does not identify the stomach contents as fried chicken and the contents are identified only as chicken on several reports of officers present at the autopsy. The typed post-mortem examination signed by Dr. Eckert neither mentions the stomach contents nor requests that the contents be examined by the lab specialist. Therefore, the testimony of Dr. Eckert as to whether the chicken was or was not fried had no scientific basis. During the 60-1507 hearing, when asked by Taylor's attorney to describe the manner of cooking of the chicken observed in the victim's stomach, Eckert stated: Q. Dr. Eckert, part of the transcription of the autopsy tape, Exhibit F, reflects that this person asked you if it was fried chicken, to which you replied, `No, it's too soft.' Can you tell me what scientific basis you utilized with respect to your reply that the chicken was too soft to have been fried chicken? A. Probably personal experience. Q. How much personal experience do you have in examination of stomach contents, sir? A. Well, in every case that I do. Q. And how long have you been a forensic pathologist? A. I was talking about eating myself. Q. Eating yourself? A. Yeah, I mean chicken. It seems like it is drier; that is, the fried chicken. Q. It's much drier? A. Yeah. A few questions later, Eckert was asked to describe the way in which the chicken in the victim's stomach had been cooked. Eckert replied: Well, I'm not a cook, to tell you the truth, but it would seem to me that they hadn't been exposed to any heat for any major proportion, in other words, from deep fried meat or deep fried sauce. I don't see anything that looks charred from what  and maybe it's because of the way that I fry chicken. I usually burn it, but the chicken meat didn't look in any way like I would usually.... I can identify it as white chicken meat and I don't see any defects or artifacts in it due to burning or exposure to high heat. During cross-examination, Dr. Eckert was asked: Q. Now, you stated in your direct testimony, you discussed the manner in which  A. Okay. Q.  the manner in which that chicken had been prepared, is that correct? A. I'm not going to be an expert on that. I'm not an expert but just.... Q. You're unable to say then whether that is fried chicken versus broiled chicken? A. Well, fried chicken, to me, usually has something wrapped around it, some kind of floury stuff or I don't know what they call that, but there is nothing here that looks in any way fried. Q. Is is not possible that the fried portion could have been peeled off and the meat itself eaten alone? A. Sure. Q. And then there would be no indication of any fried or flour within the stomach contents? A. Well anything is possible. I'm just giving you an opinion as a chicken eater. The trial court found the tape made during the autopsy was not considered as evidence by the State. The tape was made by the officer in lieu of handwritten notes for the preparation of his written report. Dr. Eckert admitted he was not an expert on the manner in which chicken was prepared, and his characterization of the manner of preparation does not have sufficient foundation or expertise to be legally significant. Given the actual comment on the autopsy tape and Eckert's testimony at the 60-1507 hearing regarding the not-fried chicken, it cannot be said that no reasonable person would have made the determination that the evidence was not of sufficient materiality as to affect the ultimate outcome of the trial. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not granting a new trial on grounds the newly discovered tomato and not-fried chicken evidence warranted a new trial. Taylor also claims his due process rights were violated by the State's withholding of the information contained in Officer Plunkett's tape recording that tomato was found in the victim's stomach. Shortly after Dr. Eckert is heard to identify the victim's stomach contents as including tomatoes, Officer Plunkett is heard to say, [S]cratch the tomato, it's a carrot. At the 60-1507 hearing, Officer Plunkett testified: Q. All right. Do you recall him telling you that there was [sic] tomatoes in the stomach? A. At one point he said he saw tomato and then I believe the comment was shortly after that, `Scratch that, it's a carrot.' Q. Is that your voice? A. Yes, it is. Q. Why did you do that? A. Because Dr.  that was Dr. Eckert's observations and I wanted it on my notes. Dr. Clark testified that, after the autopsy when he and Dr. Eckert discussed the contents of the victim's stomach, Dr. Eckert did not mention tomatoes or lettuce but stated the stomach contents were chicken, potatoes, and corn. In State v. Kelly, 216 Kan. 31, 33-36, 531 P.2d 60 (1975), the court traced the development of the rules involving the State's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence. As first stated in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963), even a passive or negligent failure by the State to disclose exculpatory evidence may result in a new trial. The rule is, as stated in Kelly: When the withholding of evidence by the prosecution is not deliberate and in bad faith and when the prosecution has not refused to honor a request for the evidence made at a proper stage of the proceedings, the defendant should be granted a new trial only if the record establishes: (1) that the evidence was withheld or suppressed by the prosecution, (2) that the evidence withheld was clearly exculpatory, and (3) that the exculpatory evidence withheld was so material that the withholding of the same from the jury was clearly prejudicial to the defendant. 216 Kan. at 36. Taylor claims State v. Gammill, 2 Kan. App.2d 627, 585 P.2d 1074 (1978), is analogous to the facts herein. In Gammill, negative results of a sperm test were not disclosed to the defendant until two days after his rape trial. Because a deputy took the victim to the hospital, knowledge of the information was imputed to the prosecution, and it was deemed improper for it not to be communicated to the defendant. As said in State v. Wolf, 7 Kan. App.2d 398, 406, 643 P.2d 1101, rev. denied 231 Kan. 802 (1982), [T]he evidence must be sufficiently material on the ultimate question of guilt or innocence to have played a determinative role in the outcome of the trial. State v. Smith, 245 Kan. 381, 385, 781 P.2d 666 (1989), requires a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed. The trial court specifically found that the autopsy tape was not deliberately withheld. The trial court's finding that the tape was not deliberately withheld is supported by substantial competent evidence. The prosecution reasonably honored all discovery requests at the time of the 1982 trial. The confusion on the tape about the presence of tomatoes in the victim's stomach appears to be explained by the subsequent statement saying the substance was actually carrots. The trial court also found Taylor failed to demonstrate the allegedly withheld evidence had sufficient materiality to warrant a new trial. We agree. Dr. Eckert's observations about the method of cooking of the chicken were not followed by subsequent analysis and lacked any basis of scientific fact. We hold the evidence was not newly discovered nor sufficiently material to have played a determinative role in the outcome of the trial. Neither was the evidence withheld by the State. We have considered all of the arguments raised in both of the briefs filed on Taylor's behalf, the first by the appellate defender, the second by his retained counsel. We have also considered the trial court's opinion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in any of its findings of fact or conclusions of law sufficient to require reversal or the granting of a new trial. Affirmed. ABBOTT, J., dissenting: My disagreement with the majority centers around Dr. Eckert's testimony concerning the victim's stomach contents and his opinion of how long the victim had been dead before the autopsy. The crucial issue in this K.S.A. 60-1507 hearing is whether the victim ate her last meal at the Brookville Hotel on Friday evening, May 28, 1982. The evidence is uncontroverted that the victim died between one and two hours after eating her last meal. The time of death was crucial to the State because the defendant had an alibi if death did not occur within a few hours after the defendant took the victim to the Brookville Hotel for dinner. When the defendant was charged, the affidavit for a warrant states that Dr. Eckert performed an autopsy. The affidavit reported Dr. Eckert's findings as follows: The stomach contents showed fried chicken, potatoes and corn. From the stage of the digestive process, time of death was placed at less than one hour after the last meal. The stomach contents [are] consistent with the standard meal served at the Brookville Hotel. (Emphasis supplied.) In affirming Taylor's conviction, this court assumed the Brookville Hotel was where the victim ate her last meal: From the contents of her stomach, the pathologist determined Shirley Taylor died from one to two hours after ingestion of her meal at the Brookville Hotel. State v. Taylor, 234 Kan. 401, 403, 673 P.2d 1140 (1983). Later, while reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court stated, The food in Shirley Taylor's stomach was eaten one to two hours before she died, and was the same food eaten at the Brookville Hotel. 234 Kan. at 409. The evidence was that the victim died within one to two hours after eating her last meal; however, the evidence was not conclusive that the victim ate her last meal at the Brookville Hotel. After his conviction was affirmed, the defendant eventually obtained his present counsel, who discovered the autopsy audiotape that clearly qualifies as newly discovered evidence. That tape was made by Officer Barry Plunkett of the Salina Police Department. At the autopsy, in addition to Dr. Eckert and an unidentified female, Plunkett, Joe Ingstrom of the Saline County Sheriff's Department, and John Green and Jim Lane of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation were present. Two points are important relating to information on tape. The Brookville Hotel serves only fried chicken and it does not serve tomatoes. Dr. Eckert's testimony is that the chicken was not fried. The majority weighs Dr. Eckert's K.S.A. 60-1507 testimony to affirm the trial court. That is the function of a jury. During the autopsy, when Dr. Eckert opened the stomach, the transcript of the tape, which Dr. Eckert testified was correct, quotes as follows: [Dr. Eckert:] [S]he had chicken. why don't you call up and see what else they had on the menu, plus tomato .... (Emphasis supplied.) [Unidentified voice:] Well, that's going to be important. [Dr. Eckert:] What we can do is we can put this in a tray like this, if you want to take a picture of it, so you can have that evidence, too; or, we can just put it all in a jar. [Unidentified male voice:] The statement the guy made is that apparently they went to Brookville, had lunch or dinner and he took her back to Salina, yeah, she was found north of Brookville. Right. [Unidentified female voice says:] Is that chicken? [Dr. Eckert:] Yes, yes, that's.... [Then the female voice again:] Is it fried chicken? [Dr. Eckert:] Well, no, it's still soft. It is obvious that at that point Dr. Eckert did not know what the Brookville Hotel serves because he suggested they check the menu. It is equally obvious that others present at the autopsy knew that the Brookville Hotel serves pan-fried chicken family style and has had the same basic menu for decades. Dr. Eckert testified he gave the stomach contents, which were in a jar, to the KBI. He also stated he suggested they have an expert in St. Louis, whose name and address he furnished, examine the contents. The tomato versus carrot issue is different. Dr. Eckert said on the tape it was tomato. The tape reveals that, while Dr. Eckert was examining the wounds to the head, the tape clicked off and on. Then Plunkett said, Reference to the stomach contents, scratch the tomato, it's a carrot. The tape continued with the examination of the victim's head. Dr. Eckert never wavered in his testimony that the object was tomato, not carrot. Q. With respect to that section where Officer Barry Plunkett interrupts on the tape recording and interjects that in examining the stomach contents, you changed your observation that there were tomatoes in the stomach to, `It's a carrot, did you make that change at the time of the autopsy? A. I don't remember carrot. I remember tomato. THE COURT: Would you repeat your answer? THE WITNESS: I didn't remember the carrot but I remembered the tomato. THE COURT: I'm not sure that is responsive to the question, is it? Q. Was there tomato in the stomach in 1982 when you observed the contents at the autopsy? A. Yes. Q. Did you testify in 1982 at the trial of this matter that not only was there tomato in the stomach but there was also lettuce? A. I said lettuce or cabbage, something like that. Q. And with respect to that, the lettuce and tomato that you testified to, are they observable in pictures today that are available from this autopsy? A. The pictures that  I looked for specifically, a reddish object which I felt was a tomato, and I see it on the picture of the gastric contents. Q. In your testimony in 1982, you say that the tomato is obvious. Is it still obvious to you today in observing that picture? A. Certainly. Q. It is? A. Uh-huh. On cross-examination, Dr. Eckert again said it looked like tomato and he was sure [he] would know the difference between carrots and tomatoes. He later testified: A.... Of course, I'm sure that I could tell the difference between the two in looking at it visually on a tray. Q. Okay. Well, visually looking at the substances on a tray, do you see an item which appears to look like a carrot? A. No, I see something that looks like a  like a tomato. Q. Do you see any orange substances which could be a carrot? A. No, the carrot has substance. There was also testimony that the victim had consumed popcorn within one and one-half hours prior to going to Brookville with the defendant. No trace of popcorn was noted in the stomach contents. The victim's body was found seven days after the Brookville dinner. Dr. Eckert, as noted by the majority, testified the victim had been dead two to four days when he performed the autopsy. Gary Schoshke discovered the body while mowing the ditch. He was within an arm's length of the body and, basically, remained at the location for several hours. Schoshke testified he did not smell anything, which would seem to be more consistent with Dr. Eckert's opinion than the State's position that seven days had passed. I also have some reservations about writing off Dr. Eckert's testimony as not credible. This is the same Dr. Eckert who acted as Sedgwick County Coroner starting in 1967 and was still serving at the time of testimony in this case. He performed approximately 300 autopsies a year in that capacity. Many of the persons serving long sentences for murder and manslaughter are in prison based on Dr. Eckert's testimony. For example, in State v. Bird, 240 Kan. 288, 289, 729 P.2d 1136 (1986), cert. denied 481 U.S. 1055 (1987), the first autopsy, by a different doctor, resulted in an autopsy report that the deceased had died as a result of an automobile accident. The body was exhumed some nine months later, and, after performing an autopsy, Dr. Eckert testified the deceased had been murdered. The defendant was convicted. Three months before the trial court heard this case, this court, in State v. Colwell, 246 Kan. 382, 386, 790 P.2d 430 (1990), said of Dr. Eckert: The defense presented Dr. Eckert, who is known to this court to have a national reputation in the field of forensic pathology. This court then reversed a first-degree felony-murder conviction based on the trial court's refusal to allow the defendant to present Dr. Eckert's qualifications to the jury because the State had stipulated he was qualified as an expert. The rationale was that Dr. Eckert was so eminently qualified that it was prejudicial to the defendant to tell the jury Dr. Eckert was qualified as an expert without allowing the defendant to place the doctor's qualifications before the jury. As recently as January of this year, we found jurisdiction proper based on Dr. Eckert's testimony that a victim shot in the neck with a shotgun would have lived two or three minutes. Venue was challenged because the victim was shot on one side of a road dividing two counties and then dragged across the road to the other county. In re J.W.S., 250 Kan. 65, 69, 825 P.2d 125 (1992). The evidence in this case is weak at best. The bullet wounds were consistent with the victim being shot while a passenger on the right side of a car. No evidence was produced that the murder took place in the defendant's car or at the site where the body was found. No physical evidence was found linking the defendant to the crime. If a jury concluded the chicken was not fried or the victim had tomato in her stomach, the jury could conclude the victim was not killed shortly after being with the defendant at the Brookville Hotel. If the victim was not killed after having dinner with the defendant at the Brookville Hotel, the State has little evidence against the defendant. I do agree with the majority on the other issues, although the possibility exists that some of the evidence the trial court rejected might be both admissible and persuasive to a jury on retrial. I would reverse and remand for a new trial, based on the evidence the State did not disclose to the defendant. The State recognized the significance of the contents of the victim's stomach, yet did not have the contents examined and did not reveal Dr. Eckert's opinions to defense counsel. ALLEGRUCCI, J., joins in the foregoing dissent.