 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Deal5/6/2003
UNPUBLISHED
A decision without a published opinion is authority only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any other purpose, nor should any court consider any such decision for any purpose except in the case in which such decision is rendered. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 (e)(3).
On 7 November 2000, defendant was indicted for first degree murder. A jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to a minimum term of 189 months and a maximum term of 236 months.
The State's evidence at trial tended to show that on 5 July 2000, Stephen Craig Patterson, Jr. ("Patterson") had gone to defendant's house after learning that defendant had been hitting Patterson's mother, to whom defendant was married. Defendant and Patterson engaged in a physical confrontation, after which Patterson left defendant's house and began walking back toward his own home. Defendant then retrieved a shotgun from his house and shot Patterson in the back, killing him. Defendant then fled thescene of the shooting.
In the early morning hours of 6 July 2000, defendant was arrested for driving while impaired ("DWI"). While in custody for DWI, defendant admitted that he had been drinking and had taken prescription painkillers on the evening of 5 July 2000. He also admitted to Lieutenant John Smith of the Cumberland County Sheriff's Department during a telephone conversation that he had shot Patterson.
At trial Dr. Nathan Strahl ("Dr. Strahl") was tendered and accepted as an expert in psychiatry and pharmacology. Dr. Strahl testified on voir dire that in his opinion, the combination of the physical altercation between defendant and Patterson and the consumption of alcohol and prescription painkillers caused defendant to act under the influence of a suddenly aroused violent passion when he shot Patterson. The trial court sustained the State's objection to this opinion testimony and refused to admit it into evidence.
On direct examination before the jury, Dr. Strahl testified that defendant was "markedly impaired" in his ability to plan to kill the victim and to form the specific intent to kill. He also stated his opinion that defendant's state of mind at the time of the shooting was "so impaired as to overcome reason" and to impair his ability "to form a deliberate purpose and control his actions." This opinion testimony was admitted without objection by the State.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in excluding the expert testimony as to defendant's state of mind at the time of theshooting, specifically whether he acted under the influence of a suddenly aroused violent passion.
Expert opinion testimony is admissible if it "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue...." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) (2001). An expert's opinion is not inadmissible solely because it embraces an ultimate issue in the case. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 704 (2001). However, the trial court may refuse "to admit expert testimony embracing a legal conclusion that the expert is not qualified to make." State v. Weeks, 322 N.C. 152, 164, 367 S.E.2d 895, 903 (1988) (citation omitted). In ruling on the admissibility of opinion testimony on a particular issue, the trial court must determine "'whether the opinion expressed is really one based on the special expertise of the expert, that is, whether the witness because of his expertise is in a better position to have an opinion on the subject than is the trier of fact.'" Id. at 165, 367 S.E.2d at 903 (quoting State v. Wilkerson, 295 N.C. 559, 568-69, 247 S.E.2d 90
Page 1 2 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|