Opinion ID: 1355273
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Issues Jointly Raised by Both Defendant Thomas and Defendant Bond

Text: The major violators unit, MVU, was created by federal grant in the 1970s in response to a need in Shelby County to target repeat offenders. The judges of the Shelby County Criminal Court agreed that MVU cases should be handled by a specific judge in a specific courtroom. Once an offender is designated MVU by the District Attorney General, the case is automatically assigned to Division V of the Shelby County Criminal Court. This program gives the District Attorney discretion to designate any defendant with multiple felony convictions an MVU case, after which one prosecutor is designated to remain with the case through final disposition. Rather than dividing the management and responsibility for a case among numerous prosecutors as it moves through pre-trial and trial, this vertical method of prosecution avoids excessive delay and promotes the more efficient prosecution of repeat offenders. Under LEAA(Law Enforcement Assistance Agency) grants in the 1970s, one courtroom was established to handle MVU cases. One court was to handle the MVU cases for expediency and purposes of judicial economy. Defendants Thomas and Bond raise several complaints arising from their designation as an MVU case. Specifically, Defendant Thomas asserts that, because his case was classified by the office of the District Attorney General as a major violator, multiple violator, or MVU case prior to indictment, the prosecution, in effect, directed the Shelby County Criminal Court Clerk's Office to assign this case to Division V of the Criminal Court. Accordingly, he alleges that the District Attorney engages in unconstitutional selective prosecution and is in violation of Rule 4 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure in the Criminal Courts of Shelby County. Defendant Bond claims that the trial court's failure to require assignment under Rule 4.01, Local Rules of Shelby County Criminal Court, violated his constitutional rights. At the trial level, Defendant(s) sought relief in the form of (1) dismissal of the indictment due to unconstitutional selective prosecution, (2) recusal of the trial court due to acquiescence in the prosecution's disregard of Rule 4.01, and (3) removal of the District Attorney General for the 30th Judicial District. The trial court, in ruling on the Defendants' motions, found, in relevant part: I just truly believe that even taking all of the defendant's factual assertions as being completely true, that their motions are without merit, they're not well-taken, and that there's no purpose to be served by taking proof in this case. I'll accept everything they say as being true with regard to the procedures that are followed  in terms of designating cases for MVU in terms of having the grand jury funnel the MVU cases to Division V. But even with all of those facts being the case, I think the law is still very well settled that that procedure does not violate equal protection or due process in any regard. ... But the same principle  so you don't have prosecutors running to ten or twelve different courts, prosecutors that handled [certain types of cases] can go to one or two courts. Those judges can familiarize themselves with sentencing alternatives. And it's that type of principle, I think, that has been in existence with regard to major violators since its inception in the mid to late 70s; and I think there are sound reasons for it, sound public-policy reasons, sound legal reasons; and absent any showing of specific denial of due process or equal protection, any specific prejudice resulting from the fact that these individuals are in this division of court set for trial, the process itself, I don't think, can be assailed given the case law that allows it and supports it and states that there is no constitutional deprivation with this type of system. Local Rule 4.01, Rules of the Shelby County Criminal Court, provides: The following method will be employed by the Criminal Court Clerk's Office for the initial assignment of cases to the ten divisions of Court. The following types of cases will be assigned to the ten divisions of court in numerical order beginning with Division I through X as the indictments are filed in the Criminal Court Clerk's Office. This procedure shall be used in the following types of cases: Murder in the First Degree, Attempt Murder in the First Degree, Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, Aggravated Kidnapping, Especially Aggravated Robbery, Aggravated Rape, Aggravated Arson, Aggravated Robbery, Rape, Aggravated Sexual Battery, Voluntary Manslaughter, Vehicular Homicide, Kidnapping, Robbery, Spousal Rape and Incest. All other cases will be divided equally among the ten divisions of the Court. All salary petitions filed by the Criminal Court Clerk and the Sheriff will be heard by the Administrative Judge. Rule 4.05, Rules of the Shelby County Criminal Court, provides: The judges may transfer cases among themselves by mutual consent. It is not necessary that the parties or their counsel consent to such transfer. A party requesting a transfer of a case from one division to another division shall obtain an order from the Court to which the case is assigned, transferring the case to another division. Defendants contend that the MVU classification violates Rule 4.01. We conclude otherwise. Rule 4.05 specifically permits judges of the Shelby County Criminal Court to transfer cases among themselves by mutual consent. It appears from the findings of the trial court that the judges of Shelby County by mutual consent have had in place a system for more than twenty years in which MVU defendants would be tried in one particular division of the court. There is no right, constitutional or otherwise, bestowed upon a criminal defendant by Rule 4.01. Indeed, a defendant does not have the right to have his case heard by a particular judge, see Sinito v. United States, 750 F.2d 512, 515 (6th Cir.1984), neither does he have the right to any particular procedure for the selection of a hearing judge, see Cruz v. Abbate, 812 F.2d 571, 574 (9th Cir.1987), nor does he enjoy the right to have a judge selected by a random draw, see Sinito, 750 F.2d at 515. Rather, the rule appears to be an administrative rule created to ensure an even distribution of cases among the various divisions of the Shelby County Criminal Court. Practical realities dictate the allocation of limited public resources. Accordingly, our courts must afford public officials substantial discretion with regard to law enforcement decisions. State v. Harton, 108 S.W.3d 253, 261 (Tenn.Crim.App.2002) (citing Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364, 98 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978)). We recognize, however, that the classification of a defendant as a major violator and the subsequent assignment of MVU cases to one division of court implicates issues of selective prosecution and due process on the judicial assignment phase of adjudication. The Due Process Clause imposes strict neutrality requirements on officials performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions. See Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195, 102 S.Ct. 1665, 72 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). Those requirements are not applicable to those acting in a prosecutorial or plaintiff-like capacity. See Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 248, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980). In an adversary system, [prosecutors] are necessarily permitted to be zealous in their enforcement of the law. Id. When prosecutorial rather than judicial functions are involved, the constitutional interests in accurate finding of facts and application of law, and in preserving a fair and open process for decision, are not to the same degree implicated. See id. In light of the role that prosecutors play as advocates, at least two state courts have concluded that judicial assignment systems allowing prosecutors to select the judge assigned to a particular case violate due process. In State v. Simpson, 551 So.2d 1303 (La.1989) ( per curiam ), the defendant filed an application for a supervisory writ seeking reassignment of his case to another judge. Noting that the prosecutor and the defense attorney had stipulated that in the Louisiana district at issue, the prosecution was allowed to select the judge who presided over criminal cases, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the writ. The court reasoned: To meet due process requirements, capital and other felony cases must be allotted for trial to the various divisions of the court, or to judges assigned criminal court duty, on a random or rotating basis or under some other procedure adopted by the court which does not vest the district attorney with power to choose the judge to whom a particular case is assigned. Id. at 1304 (footnotes omitted). The Simpson court based this conclusion on the concept that [d]ue process of law requires fundamental fairness, i.e., a fair trial in a fair tribunal. Id. (citing Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965); State v. Mejia, 250 La. 518, 197 So.2d 73 (1967)). The court noted decisions from other jurisdictions concluding that courts may utilize different methods of assigning criminal cases to judges, but observed that these decisions do not stand for the proposition that the prosecutor may assign cases to the judge of his or her choice. Id. at 1304 n. 3. In an earlier decision, a New York state court took a similar approach. In McDonald v. Goldstein, 191 Misc. 863, 83 N.Y.S.2d 620 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1948), the court rejected a district attorney's challenge to an order divesting his office of its long-accepted authority to select judges for criminal cases. See id. at 622 (noting that [t]he District Attorney for some time past has selected the judge in each case by moving indictments for trial directly to the several parts of the court.). The court based its ruling on general principles of judicial independence, noting that judges should be free from outside control, especially by any of the litigants. See id. at 625 (It is the people's prerogative, not the District Attorney's to say who will preside over the County Court of Kings County.). In contrast to Simpson and McDonald , most federal courts that have addressed the issue of prosecutorial involvement in judicial assignments have not found due process violations. In Tyson v. Trigg, 50 F.3d 436, 439-42 (7th Cir.1995), cert. den. 516 U.S. 1041, 116 S.Ct. 697, 133 L.Ed.2d 655 (1996), ( Tyson II ), the most recent and thorough of these federal decisions, the Seventh Circuit rejected an argument raised in a habeas corpus proceeding that the case assignment system in an Indiana state court violated the defendant's due process rights. The system in question allowed the prosecutor to select one of six grand juries to which a proposed indictment would be presented. Each grand jury was assigned to a specific judge, and thus, by selecting the grand jury, prosecutors implicitly chose the judge to which the case would be assigned. The habeas petitioner in Tyson II did not argue that the assigned judge was prejudiced against him. Instead, he asserted that to allow the prosecutor to pick the judge so greatly stacks the deck against the defendant as to make the trial unfair  so unfair as to deny due process of law. Id. at 439. The Seventh Circuit rejected that argument. [3] First, it noted a lack of precedent holding that prosecutorial steering could constitute a due process violation warranting the reversal of a conviction. Additionally, it concluded that the fact that the prosecutor might gain a certain advantage over the defendant in being allowed to select the judge did not render the trial fundamentally unfair. See id. at 440-41. It reasoned that the American system of criminal procedure is not balanced equally between the prosecution and the defense at every stage, but rather represents an aggregate of imbalances. Id. at 440. Thus, prosecutors have certain advantages in the investigative stage and in impeaching witnesses, while the rules on burdens of proof favor defendants. See id. Absent any allegation that the judge selected by the prosecutor was actually biased against the defendant, the imbalance caused by the Indiana system was not so egregious as to affect the fairness of the trial. Several other federal courts have held that, in order to establish a due process violation for prosecutorial judge-shopping, a defendant must demonstrate actual prejudice by the assignment of a particular judge to his case. For example, in United States v. Gallo, 763 F.2d 1504, 1532 (6th Cir.1985), cert. den. 474 U.S. 1068, 106 S.Ct. 826, 88 L.Ed.2d 798 (1986), the Sixth Circuit rejected the defendant's argument that he was entitled to a new trial because the prosecutors had engaged in a pattern of steering significant criminal cases to the judges of their choice. See id. The court relied on its earlier decision in Sinito v. United States, supra , in which it had held that due process concerns were not implicated by a clerical error resulting in the assignment of a case to a different judge than would have sat absent the error. See Gallo, 763 F.2d at 1532. The Sinito panel had concluded that a defendant does not have the right to have his case heard by a particular judge, does not have the right to have his judge selected by a random draw, and is not denied due process [when the selection process is not operated in compliance with local rules] ... unless he can point to some resulting prejudice. Sinito, 750 F.2d at 515. The Gallo panel found this reasoning dispositive, rejecting the defendant's argument because he had not alleged that the trial judge was in any way disqualified to hear his case. 763 F.2d at 1532. Several other decisions have similarly required a showing of prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Erwin, 155 F.3d 818, 825 (6th Cir.1998), cert. den. 525 U.S. 1123, 119 S.Ct. 906, 142 L.Ed.2d 904 (1999); United States v. Osum, 943 F.2d 1394, 1401 (5th Cir.1991). Although all of these decisions offer helpful and relevant analysis, they differ from the instant case. First, we hesitate to conclude that the designation of a criminal defendant as a major violator by the District Attorney General and his Assistants constitutes judge-shopping. Once a defendant is determined to qualify as a major violator, the District Attorney does not select what division to which the case will be assigned. Rather, it appears that the judges of the Shelby County Criminal Court specifically designated Division V to hear such cases. Notwithstanding, even if we were to consider this process judge-shopping, we are also cognizant that the judge assigned to MVU cases has been sworn to uphold the law and defend the Constitution, and his or her conduct can be scrutinized through appellate review. We presume honesty and integrity in those acting as adjudicators. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975). Thus, we refuse to presume that the judge assigned to MVU designees acts as an agent of the prosecutor. Additionally, it does not appear to this Court that the designation of Division V as the MVU court necessarily results in a court in which the determination of guilt or innocence cannot reliably be made. Finally, Defendants have failed to establish that they were prejudiced by the assignment of their case to Division V. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the Defendants were deprived of a fair trial by assignment to Division V nor do we conclude that by assigning MVU defendants to Division V, the Shelby County Courts are in violation of Local Rule 4.01. This issue is without merit. [4]
The Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that argument of counsel is a valuable privilege that should not be unduly restricted. Smith v. State, 527 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tenn.1975). Attorneys have great leeway in arguing before a jury, and the trial court's broad discretion in controlling their arguments will be reversed only upon an abuse of discretion. See Terry, 46 S.W.3d at 156. However, closing argument must be temperate, must be predicated on evidence introduced during the trial of the case and must be pertinent to the issues being tried. See Russell v. State, 532 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tenn.1976). The State is more limited in its prerogative due to the prosecutor's role as a seeker of justice, rather than a mere advocate. See Coker v. State, 911 S.W.2d 357, 368 (Tenn.Crim.App.1995), overruled on other grounds, State v. West, 19 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn.2000). Thus, the state must refrain from argument designed to inflame the jury and should restrict its commentary to matters in evidence or issues at trial. Id. Prosecutorial misconduct during argument does not constitute reversible error unless it appears that the outcome was affected to the defendant's prejudice. See State v. Bane, 57 S.W.3d 411, 425 (Tenn.2001). Both Defendants contend that the prosecutor's opening statement and closing arguments were so marred by misconduct as to require a new trial. We note first, however, that Defendant Thomas and Defendant Bond's failure to object to opening and closing argument at trial waives our consideration of this issue on appeal. See Tenn. R.App. P. 36(a) (providing that relief is not required for a party who failed to take reasonably available action to prevent or nullify an error); State v. Little, 854 S.W.2d 643, 651 (Tenn.Crim.App.1992) (holding that the defendant's failure to object to the State's alleged misconduct during closing argument waives that issue). Thus, where a prosecuting attorney makes allegedly objectionable remarks during closing argument, but no contemporaneous objection is made, the complaining defendant is not entitled to relief on appeal unless the remarks constitute plain error. See Tenn. R.App. P. 36(b); Tenn. R.Crim. P. 52(b); State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 282 (Tenn.2000). In determining whether an alleged trial error constitutes plain error, we consider five factors: 1) the record must clearly establish what occurred at trial; 2) a clear and unequivocal rule of law must have been breached; 3) a substantial right of the defendant must have been adversely affected; 4) the defendant did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and 5) consideration of the error is necessary to do substantial justice. See State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626, 641-42 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994). Ultimately, the error must have had an unfair prejudicial impact which undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial. Id. at 642.
The prosecutor for the State who made opening statement in this case began, You can't hide from greed and evil. James Day learned that lesson on April 21st, 1997.... She continued: James Day learned you can't hide from greed and evil, and He walked into the path of greed and evil. Throughout opening statement, the prosecutor referred collectively to Defendant Thomas and Defendant Bond as greed and evil. This theme was repeated during closing argument, in which both prosecutors made references that James Day couldn't hide from greed and evil, there was no hiding from or escaping the circle of greed and evil, and greed and evil really didn't care that day whether he lived or died. The prosecutors referred to the Defendants as greed and evil a total of twenty-one times during the opening statement and closing arguments of the guilt phase of the trial. Defendant Thomas and Defendant Bond, neither of whom entered a contemporaneous objection to these statements, ask this Court to find plain error in the State's conduct. See Tenn. R.Crim. P. 52(b). It is improper for the prosecutor to use epithets to characterize a defendant. The prosecutors' repeated references to Defendant Thomas and Defendant Bond as greed and evil was improper. See, e.g., Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d at 737 (evil one); State v. Bates, 804 S.W.2d 868, 881 (Tenn.1991) (rabid dog); State v. Ladonte Montez Smith, No. M1997-00087-CCA-R3-CD, 1999 WL 1210813, at  (Tenn.Crim.App., Nashville, Dec. 17, 1999) (guilty dog); State v. Joel Guilds, No. 01C01-9804-CC-00182, 1999 WL 333368, at  5 (Tenn.Crim.App., Nashville, May 27, 1999) (this clown). When a prosecutor engages in improper argument, we must also consider the curative measures taken by the court and/or the prosecution; the prosecutor's intent in making the improper remarks; the cumulative effect of the erroneous statements and any other errors in the record; and the relative strength or weakness of the case. See Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d at 809; State v. Buck, 670 S.W.2d 600, 609 (Tenn.1984). Here, we find the prosecutors' comments unseemly but harmless in the context of the entire argument. No curative instruction was provided primarily because neither Defendant Thomas nor Defendant Bond objected to the characterization. Moreover, the State's case was strong and the effect of the error was insignificant. In short, the State's improper argument did not undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial, and we therefore conclude that this issue gains the Defendants no relief.
During opening statement of the penalty phase, counsel for Defendant Thomas stated, [Defendant] Thomas will never get out of jail. He'll be in there, at the earliest, until he's eighty. In response to this statement, the prosecutor began her closing argument with, I'm going to start off this morning by apologizing ... for wasting your time this week because you heard it, they're both doing a lot of time already. Why in the world are we down here? Let's just forget this murder. I'm sorry, Ms. Day, James Day's death should be a freebie. I mean, they're already doing a lot of time. Defendants contend that it was improper to argue that a defendant should be sentenced to death as additional punishment for a previous conviction. The State contends that this was a proper response to Defendant Thomas' attempt to minimize the current crime by emphasizing the penalties he already faced. While community conscience arguments are generally improper, a prosecutor's closing argument must be evaluated in light of the defense argument that preceded it. See Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 179, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 2470, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986). Here, both Defendants ignore that it was defense counsel who first invoked community conscience by telling the jurors that Defendant Thomas had already been sentenced to a lengthy period of confinement. Obviously the prosecutor's comment was a response to that statement. In Darden, supra , the Supreme Court considered the following factors in determining that the prosecutors' closing argument did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial: The prosecutors' argument did not manipulate or misstate the evidence, nor did it implicate other specific rights of the accused such as the right to counsel or the right to remain silent. Much of the objectionable content was invited by or was responsive to the opening summation of the defense.... [T]he idea of invited response is used not to excuse improper comments, but to determine their effect on the trial as a whole. The trial court instructed the jurors several times that their decision was to be made on the basis of the evidence alone, and that the arguments of counsel were not evidence. The weight of the evidence against petitioner was heavy; the overwhelming eyewitness and circumstantial evidence to support a finding of guilt on all charges, reduced the likelihood that the jury's decision was influenced by argument.... Darden's trial was not perfect  few are  but neither was it fundamentally unfair. Id. at 181-83, 106 S.Ct. 2464 (citations omitted). Similar factors are present here. Doubtless the testimony of the numerous witnesses and the admission by Defendant Bond did far more to seal their fate than a single abbreviated comment by the prosecutor during closing argument. As in Darden , the trial may not have been perfect, but it was fair and no reversible error can be predicated on the prosecutor's closing argument.
Defendant Thomas complains that the trial court committed several errors with regard to the admission of expert testimony. Specifically, Defendant Thomas complains (1) Dr. Gardner should not have been permitted to testify and make comments regarding the victim's therapy, (2) Dr. Smith should not have been permitted to provide opinions as to the treatment of the victim immediately after the shooting, (3) Dr. Smith should not have been qualified as a ballistics expert, and (4) Dr. Smith should not have been permitted to testify about events in the hospital immediately after the victim was shot. Defendant Bond joins Defendant Thomas' complaints regarding (1) Dr. Smith's testimony regarding the diagnosis and treatment of the victim as a living patient and (2) Dr. Smith being qualified as an expert in ballistics. A witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise, provided the scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will substantially assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. See Tenn. R. Evid. 702. An expert may base his or her opinion upon facts or data imparted to or perceived by the expert prior to or at a hearing; the facts or data need not be admissible if they are the type of facts or data reasonably relied upon by experts. See Tenn. R. Evid. 703. If the underlying facts or data lack trustworthiness, the court shall disallow expert testimony based upon them. See id. Evidence and expert testimony regarding scientific theory must be both relevant and reliable before it may be admitted. See McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 265 (Tenn.1997). The trial court has broad discretion in resolving questions concerning the qualifications, admissibility, relevance, and competency of expert testimony. See State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 832 (Tenn.2002). An appellate court should not overturn a trial court's decision in admitting or excluding a proposed expert's testimony unless it finds the trial court abused its discretion. See State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 562 (Tenn.1993).
Defendant Thomas complains that Dr. Gardner's testimony concerning the victim's therapy should not have been allowed as it was outside her field of expertise. During Dr. Gardner's direct testimony, she was questioned as to the daily regimen of care for James Day by his wife. An objection was made on the basis that Dr. Gardner is not a health-care provider, she's not a physical therapist, she's not  doesn't have any expertise in any of these areas. The trial court sustained the objection, and instructed the prosecutor to rephrase the line of questioning. No other objections were made to this line of questioning. The State submits that Defendant Thomas has, therefore, waived any challenge to Dr. Gardner's testimony on this issue. Dr. Gardner is a licensed medical doctor in Tennessee and is currently employed as an assistant medical examiner for Shelby County. Dr. Gardner is also an instructor in pathology for the medical school. Dr. Gardner completed her residency in anatomic and clinical pathology following medical school, then completed a fellowship in forensic pathology. Based upon her training as a medical doctor, Dr. Gardner was qualified to testify regarding catheterization. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony. This claim is without merit.
Defendant Thomas claims that the trial court further erred by allowing Dr. O.C. Smith to give opinions in several areas of medicine of which he was not an expert [,][i]including, but not limited to, giving his opinion as to whether treatment was proper after the victim was shot. To the extent that Defendant Thomas fails to delineate specific grounds of error, those claims are waived. See Tenn R.App. P. 27(a); Tenn. Ct.Crim.App. R. 10(b). Specifically, Defendants Thomas and Bond assert two challenges to Dr. Smith's testimony: (1) Dr. Smith is not qualified to render opinions as to a living person, and (2) Dr. Smith should not have been qualified as an expert in ballistics.
Dr. Smith was asked to render an opinion as to the cause of death of the victim and whether it related to the gunshot fired by Defendant Thomas two and one-half years earlier. Determining the cause of death is the type of opinion a medical examiner is called upon to make. Dr. Smith's review of the treatment records, including assessments of James Day's injuries, was necessary to the formation of that opinion. In this regard, Dr. Smith is a licensed medical doctor in the State of Tennessee and board certified in forensic pathology, anatomical pathology, and clinical pathology. Based upon his training as a medical doctor, Dr. Smith was qualified to testify regarding the gunshot wound inflicted upon the victim, the likely results of such an injury, and the course of treatment to the victim. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony. This claim is without merit.
During voir dire of Dr. Smith, Dr. Smith stated that he has previously testified as a ballistics expert. Defendant Bond objected, stating that the testimony of a ballistics expert was not relevant to the victim's cause of death. The objection was overruled. The trial court determined that a ballistics expert could shed some light on the gunshot wound, recognizing that the state is attempting ... to demonstrate that the gunshot is the cause  the initial event that caused his death; and to that end, I think if this witness can be qualified as a ballistics expert, his opinion may be very helpful in shedding some light on the facts of the case[.] Dr. Smith then continued to explain the role of a ballistics expert and the training necessary to become a forensic firearms examiner. He stated that he received training in forensic firearms examination by R.A. Stindler. Objection was again made by both Defendant Bond and Defendant Thomas, on the basis that such testimony was not relevant. On appeal, Defendants complain that the qualifications of Dr. Smith as a ballistics expert were irrelevant in that no knowledge of firearms identification and analysis was introduced with his opinion as to the cause and manner of death. Defendants are correct that there was no direct challenge to the fact that the victim was wounded by a bullet. However, the effect of the shot was crucial to the defense and the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim's death was the result of a gunshot wound inflicted during the robbery. Dr. Smith's training in forensic firearm identification, specifically his military training involving traumatic injuries, permitted him to make the determination as to whether the shot was likely to be fatal. We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting Dr. Smith to be qualified as a firearms expert. This claim is without merit.