Court Opinion

ID: 9807456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:05:14.268053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:17.011971
License: Public Domain

Avjbry, J.
(concurring): Without filing a formal dissent to the opinion of the Court, I prefer to rest my concurrence in the conclusion reached upon different grounds.
Dr. Hines, an acknowledged expert in all matters pertaining to surgery and medicine, was offered as a witness for the State. After he had described in his examination-in-chiefi the laceration he discovered in making a private examination of the prosecutrix, and expressed the opinion that her condition was caused by receñí carnal connection with a man, he stated, in reply to a question on cross-examination, in reference to the nature of the apparent injuries to her person, that she presented just the appearance he would expect to find in a bride on the second or third morning after marriage, and that he heard no complaint of any bruises elsewhere on her body. On re direct examination the prosecuting attorney asked the witness the hypothetical question, *828'‘Suppose the jury should find as a fact that there was a bruise on her right shoulder behind, finger-prints on both arms above the elbow, a bruise and blister on both elbows, a bruise on the small of her back and a red knot on the left side of her chest, would you expect to find these, together with the condition of the private parts, as testified to by you, in a young woman on the second or third day after marriage?” The witness was permitted by the Court, the prisoner objecting, to answer that he would not. The prisoner excepted. Another witness had testified that she found just such bruises as counsel mentioned on the person of the prosecutrix. This Court has held that the opinion of a well-instructed and experienced medical man upon a matter within the scope of his profession, and based upon personal observation and knowledge, should possess a higher value in determining the mental as well as the physical condition of one attended by him, than that of an unprofessional man, and should be considered carefully and weighed by a jury in rendering their verdict. Flynt v. Bodenhamer, 80 N. C., 205; State v. Slagle, 83 N. C., 630. If, therefore, the testimony was not competent, its admission was an error that tended to prejudice the rights and imperil the safety of the prisoner in a degree proportionate to the respect that the jury entertained for the opinion of a learned physician, as we must assume that they acted upon the idea that his skill and training fitted him in a peculiar manner for judging from such external bruises as were described by other witnesses, whether the admitted carnal connection between the prisoner and the prosecutrix was against her will or with her consent. Upon the decision of that question their verdict and his life depended. The Courts of this country have laid down very clearly the tests for fixing the limit to the peculiar domain of expert witnesses; yet, in applying the principles to particular cases, it has often been found difficult to distinguish between expert and ordinary testimony, especially to deter*829mine upon what subjects, and to what extent, educated and experienced surgeons should be allowed to give an opinion as witnesses. When-the subject-matter of inquiry partakes of the nature of science, art or trade, persons possessing peculiar knowledge, skill or experience derived from previous practice, study or training, are allowed to give an opinion, if such opinion is calculated-to assist inexperienced persons in arriving at a proper solution of the question. When, however, the injury is of such a nature that a person of sound judgment might be reasonably expected to arrive-at a conclusion as correct and just without as with the advantage of such special study or experience, then the opinion of the expert witness is not admissible, because it-gives no new light to the jury, who are presumed to be capable of bringing to their aid a fair share of intelligence, common sense and reason in drawing inferences from the facts and thereby reaching a verdict. Rogers on Expert Test., §§ 6 and 7; Lawson on Ex. and Op. Ev., Rule 28.
An apt illustration and application of the rule we have stated, is found in the case of Cook v. State, 24 N. J. Law, 843, where it was held that a physician was not competent to testify that a rape could not have been committed in a particular manner, that had been described by the prosecutrix. The Court say: “No peculiar knowledge of the human system was necessary to answer it. It was a mere question of relative strength or mechanical possibility, which an athlete or mechanic could have answered as well as a physician, and every man upon the jury as well as either.” So it has been held, that what is the proximate cause of the injury is not a question of science or of legal knowledge, but is a fact-to be determined by a jury from surrounding circumstances. Railroad Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S., 469.
The inquiry, then, which involves the test of the correctness of his Honor’s ruling, upon the admissibility of the testimony of Dr. Hines is, whether his knowledge of surgery, *830or experience in the practice of his profession, was such as to enable him to give a more satisfactory opinion than an intelligent and observant juror, as to the question whether the bruises upon the arms and back of the prosecutrix (which had not been examined by him, but which had been described by witnesses in his hearing), could have been caused by the voluntary coition of the prosecutrix, a girl of seventeen years, with the prisoner, on the floor of his own chamber, or whether these marks were unmistakable evidence of violence used by the prisoner to overcome resistance on her part. However the fact may be, we can see no reason why the physician should be able, from his training, to judge more accurately than any other intelligent man, whether the injuries to her person were not such as a bride might have suffered from the difficulties incident to her first act of carnal connection with her husband, at the same place. Yet, it is manifest that the jury may have been misled by considering the answer of the physician to the question objected to, as an expression of his opinion, founded upon his observation and experience, that the marks upon the body of the prosecutrix must have been made in a violent struggle to protect her virtue.
In the case of State v. Slagle, supra, the physician, an expert, was permitted to give the opinion that a certain bottle contained poisonous drugs, though he had not analyzed its contents, because he had testified that he could tell the ingredients from the smell, taste and appearance. At most, in doubtful cases of this kind, the testimony should be received by the Courts, as in State v. Clark, 12 Ired., 151, only “when assured by the physician that the principles of their science, applicable to a particular subject of inquiry established certain results, or “when they swear” they can draw the proposed distinction by reason of their peculiar professional skill and training.
*831In State v. Sheets, 89 N. C., 543, Justice Ashe, for the Court, says: “When the professors of science, as physicians, for instance, swear that they are able to pronounce an opinion in any particular, though the}»' say that precisely such a case had not fallen under their observation or under their notice, in the course of their reading, it is competent to give in evidence their opinion.” To the same effect is Horton v. Green, 64 N. C., 64.
It would have been easy to apply the test by which this Court determined the competency of expert evidence in the four cases cited, by asking the witness (Dr. Hines) if, from his observation in his practice and his reading, he thought he could tell whether the bruises described were such as could be caused by violence on the part of the prisoner, or whether they might have been naturally incident to a voluntary connection with a young woman. It may be that he would have answered, that his opinion upon such a subject was worth no more than that of a member of the jury, and in that event, we have no idea'-that counsel would have insisted upon propounding the question objected to. Where the Judge, being unlearned in any art or science like medicine, is in doubt whether a knowledge of such science is calculated to give one peculiar advantages in solving a question before a jury, he can be relieved of embarrassment by asking an acknowledged expert whether his professional training is such as to enable him to give a more satisfactory opinion on the subject of inquiry than an inexperienced man. This method of cutting the gordian knot in all doubtful cases of this kind has been sanctioned by this Court, and commends itself as reasonable and just.
While the jury was being selected, Gr. IT. Womble, one of the special venire, was passed by the State to the prisoner, who challenged him for cause, and, after being sworn, was asked by prisoner’s counsel the following questions:
*832. -'Have you formed and expressed the opinion that the prisoner at the bar is guilty ? ” To which the juror answered, “No1.”
He was then asked by prisoner’s counsel, “Have you a present opinion that the prisoner is guilty ?” To this question the State objected. Objection sustained. Exception by the prisoner.
The juror was further asked, “ Have you a prejudice against Roman Catholics?” To which the juror replied, “No.”
These three questions were the only ones put to the juror to try his indifferency, and the answer of “No” to the first and third questions was the only evidence before the Court as to his indifferency.
Another juror, named Penney, was asked the same questions, and the same answers were elicited, and a similar ruling and exception entered for refusal to allow the second question. Both Wornble and Penney were peremptorily challenged, and the prisoner exhausted his peremptory challenges before the last juror was selected.
In entering upon the discussion of this exception, I promise that it is settled law—
1. That the prisoner had a right to ask the juror whether he had formed and expressed the opinion that the prisoner was guilty, and, if the juror answered in the affirmative, nothing more appearing, it was good ground of challenge; but if, on cross-examination, he had stated that his opinion was founded on rumor only, and that, upon hearing the evidence and the law applicable to it, he could still render a fair and impartial verdict, the prisoner would have had no ground of challenge. State v. Benton, 2 Dev. & Bat., 196; State v Collins, 70 N. C., 241; State v. Bone, 7 Jones, 121; Wharton Cr. L., 3069.
2. That a juror who had formed such a fixed opinion, that the prisoner was guilty, that it could not be so far removed, upon hearing the testimony from the witnesses *833and the law from the Court, as to enable him to render a fair verdict, was absolutely disqualified to act, and no explanation would render him eligible if the prisoner objected to him. Thompson & Merriam on Juries, §§ 207 (2), 215; O’Mara v. Com., 75 Pa. St., 424; Wharton Cr. L., §§ 3068 and 3073; State v. Kingsbury. 58 Me., 239; Wharton Cr. L., 30, 96 ; State v. Wilson, 38 Ct., 126.
3. It is equally well settled that, if a juror gives expression to an opinion of the prisoner’s guilt, formed from hearing a preliminary trial, from conversation with the prosecutor, or with witnesses who state the facts as such, the prisoner has the unqualified right to object to him. Thompson & Merriam on Juries, §213, and authorities cited. We may add that, when a juror has formed an opinion, and it is formed on information derived from the prosecutor, the witnesses, for the State, from the testimony heard at a preliminary investigation, though he may not have expressed it, or though he may think that he would not adhere to it if the whole of the evidence on the trial should present other phases of the case, still he would not be an impartial juror, and the prisoner should not be compelled to accept him. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S., 145; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cushing, 295; Thompson & Merriam on Juries, §207 (2); O’Mara v. Com., 75 Pa. St., 424; Armistead v. Com., 11 Leigh’s Rep., 657.
Where a juror was a member of the grand jury that found the bill of indictment, or a member of a jury who have already heard the case on a former trial, he is considered absolutely disqualified if objected to by the prisoner. And where it appears, from an examination of the proposed juror, that he sustained any such relation to the parties or cause as would naturally lead him to prejudge the issue unfavorably to the prisoner, it should constitute a ground of principal challenge. “ The proposition that a challenge propter affectum involves matter of fact alone is not correct. *834The point was very much considered in Benton’s case, and it was there found that the Judge was bound to instruct the triers, as he would a jury, upon matter of law, whereby, supposing the facts to be ascertained, the juror offered, though not standing in such a relation to the parties as to constitute a principal challenge, is yet held, in law, not to stand indifferent, because with some other connection with some person interested in the suit or question. And it was held, upon these authorities, that if the Court erred in such instruction to the triers, the decision was the subject of review here." Schorn v. Williams, 6 Jones L., 577. If this Court can review errors of the Judge below in passing upon the different facts, or combinations of facts, that prove bias or prejudgment on the part of a juror, it is obviously improper to restrict counsel in eliciting the facts by his examination of the party challenged, so that he cannot present his objections intelligently.
Applying this principle to our case, suppose that the purpose of the counsel was to show, not only that the juror had formed an opinion, but that he had formed it from conversation' with the prosecutor, or the witnesses, in reference to the evidence, or from hearing the investigation of the case before a Judge or Justice of the Peace, how could he develop the facts so as to make good his cause for principal challenge on one of these grounds, unless permitted first to ask the juror whether he has in fact formed such an opinion at all? Of course, where he had refrained from expressing it, his opinion could be ascertained only by asking such question of him on his voir dire, and as it constituted an essential foundation for finding out whether the juror was subject to principal challenge oh one of the grounds mentioned, the question was clearly competent, and should have been allowed. And- the authorities very generally sustain the view that it is competent, and the mere formation of the opinion disqualifies the juror, because it is necessary to *835know whether any definite opinion has been formed preliminary to asking and ascertaining other facts that constitute good ground either for a principal challenge or one to the favor. Thompson & Merriam on Juries, sec. 208; The People v. Christie, 2 Abbot’s Pr. Reps., 256; Wharton Cr. L., sec 3108; 1 Burr, 367; The People v. Hettick, 1 Wheeler’s Cr. C., 399; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cushing, 298; Trent v. Williams, 39 Ind., 18; Com. v. Knapp, 9 Pickering’s Rep., 496; Romaine v. State, 7 Ind., 63. If the question asked was necessarily incident to determining the prisoner’s right to a principal challenge on any ground, it would be useless to discuss the point— to which we shall advert presently — whether the prisoner is required to give notice to the Court when he proposes to challenge to the favor. On the other hand, if it was proposed to find out whether the juror had formed the opinion that the prisoner was guilty preliminary to other questions to the favor, it would seem to be as effectual a denial of the right to examine into the qualification of the latter, as the ruling in State v. Fuller, 66 N. C., 632, that a defendant indicted for a misdemeanor had no right to challenge for cause. To the suggestion that the prisoner did not state that the challenge was to the favor, we reply that this Court sustained the opposite view in State v. McAfee, 64 N. C., 339, by sustaining the right to ask the juror the question whether the juror “believed he could do equal and impartial justice between the State and a colored man,” in order “ to test his qualification.” That ruling is sustained in The People v. Christie, 2 Parker, 579, where the Court says “ the prosecutor at the trial did not object that the challenge assigned against the juror should have been, not for principal cause, but to the favor, and therefore he cannot take such position here.” See, also, The People v. Rogers, 5 Cal., 347.
Wharton (in his Work on Criminal Law, §3125), says: “ Challenges to the polls for favor take place when, though *836the juror is not so evidently partial as to amount to a principal challenge, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he will act under some undue influence or prejudice. The distinction, however, between challenges for favor and those for principal cause is so fine that it is practically disregarded. Consequently, what has already been said under the head of challenges for principal cause is to be examined and connected with challenges for favor.” When the shadowj^ line that divides the two kinds of challenges cannot be marked out by Wharton with sufficient distinctness to treat the two separately, it would seem scarcely reasonable to make a prisoner’s life depend upon the ability of counsel to give formal notice when he is on the eve of crossing it in the course of his examination of a juror. One of the reasons for losing sight of the difference between the two kinds of objections in later years, in this and some other States, is found in the fact that the Judge is substituted in the practice for the triers, and the prisoner is not required to sound the alarm by requesting the appointment of triers whenever he submits a Challenge to the favor, as he was required under the old-mode of proceeding to do. Wharton Cr. L., § 3063. This change of practice will doubtless, too, account for some confusion in the authorities. But we cannot afford to step backwards and adopt rules predicated upon reasons no longer operative.