Court Opinion

ID: 9878975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:51:13.241229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:51.371219
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, JUDGE,
SPECIALLY CONCURRING:
¶ 1 I agree with the decision to affirm this ease. I write to clarify one point regarding the introduction at trial of evidence relating to the Medical Examiner’s office’s lack of accreditation.
¶ 2 The issue addressed by this Court in this case is whether Dr. Yacoub’s testimony was inadmissible because the Medical Examiner’s office is not accredited. I agree that the admissibility of evidence such as Dr. Yacoub’s testimony is not determined by whether the Medical Examiner’s office is subject to the accreditation provisions of The Forensic Laboratory Accreditation Act. The Court’s conclusion that “as long as the requirements of Title 63 are met in each case, accreditation of the Medical Examiner’s office goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility” is also correct. It is worth mentioning, however, that the admissibility of this evidence must' always be prefaced upon a threshold finding of relevancy. This Court’s ruling does not in any way suggest or support the assumption that evidence regarding accreditation of the Medical Examiner’s office -will always be relevant.