 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Pyburn8/16/2004
s qualified and allowed him to testify that the "red splatters" on the window blinds and bathroom door were "consistent with blood spatter and . . . the material was under pressure in striking the surface with a certain amount of velocity."
"If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will substantially assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise." Tenn. R. Evid. 702. An expert may base her opinion upon facts or data imparted to or perceived by the expert prior to or at a hearing, and the facts or data need not be admissible if they are the type of facts or data reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field. Tenn. R. Evid. 703. The trial court shall disallow testimony in the form of an opinion if the underlying facts or data indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Id. Moreover, expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable before it may be admitted. McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 265 (Tenn. 1997) "Questions regarding the qualifications, admissibility, relevancy, and competency of expert testimony are matters left within the broad discretion of the trial court." State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 832 (Tenn. 2002). This court will not overturn the trial court's ruling regarding the admissibility of expert testimony absent an abuse of discretion. Id.
We conclude that Dr. Harlan was qualified to testify as an expert for the purpose of identifying the blood spatter and the brain tissue in the crime scene photographs. Our supreme court has previously observed that an expert witness "may acquire the necessary expertise through formal education or life experiences." State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 302 (Tenn. 2002), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 56 (2003). "However, the witness must have such superior skill, experience, training, education, or knowledge within the particular area that his or her degree of expertise is beyond the scope of common knowledge and experience of the average person." Id. During the jury-out hearing, Dr. Harlan testified that in addition to forensic pathology, he was "subspecialized" in neuropathology and had served as the head of the department of neuropathology at the University of Tennessee. Moreover, Dr. Harlan testified that he had received specialized training in the area of blood spatter, which training was "a portion of every forensic pathologist's background and training." He related, "I've worked with certain medical technologists who had special training in [blood spatter], including people who trained at Scotland Yard and I have a certain amount of expertise in that area beyond what the normal forensic pathologist would have."
We further conclude that Dr. Harlan's testimony was relevant and reliable. The crime scene photographs were introduced into evidence during the testimony of Allan Weeks, one of the investigators who photographed the crime scene. By questioning Dr. Harlan about the photographs, the State sought to introduce evidence that the victim had been shot in his bedroom. Dr. Harlan testified in great detail about the method by which he identified the substance on the bed as brain tissue, stating that he was able to identify the portion of cerebral cortex by the series of ridges and valleys of which it was composed. When asked about the red substance on the bathroom door and the window blinds, Dr. Harlan's testimony was limited to the fact that the substance was consistent with blood spatter. Dr. Harlan acknowledged that he was unable to determine the species of the brain tissue and that neither the brain tissue nor the blood was submitte
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|