 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Collman v. State8/23/2000
to prove that Damian was an abused child. Further, Dr. Rawson's testimony referred to his overall conclusion that nine bite marks were present and that Collman caused them all; therefore, contrary to Collman's contention, the entire report contained information to which Dr. Rawson testified. We conclude that the district court did not err in admitting the report.
VII. Defense evidence regarding bite marks on the victim's body
The State presented evidence that Damian had several bite marks on his body. While one mark on his forearm was indisputably a bite mark, the parties vigorously litigated whether the other marks were bites. Dr. Norman Sperber was one of three defense experts in forensic dentistry. All three experts agreed that Damian had one bite mark on his arm, but ruled out the other marks as bites. Outside the presence of the jury, Dr. Sperber testified that he became involved with this case while at a conference attended by law enforcement agents and other forensic dentists. One of the police officers assigned to the instant case showed Dr. Sperber Damian's photographs and a report written by the state's forensic dentist expert. Dr. Sperber showed the photographs and/or portions of the report to his colleagues at the conference. Those colleagues apparently opined based solely on the photographs that Damian possessed only one bite mark on his forearm. Collman moved the district court to permit Dr. Sperber to testify to his colleagues' statements. The district court denied the motion because the statements were not reliable.
Arguing that the district court erred by excluding the statements, Collman cites NRS 51.075(1) and Emmons v. State, 107 Nev. 53, 807 P.2d 718 (1991). NRS 51.075(1) provides: "A statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule if its nature and the special circumstances under which it was made offer assurances of accuracy not likely to be enhanced by calling the declarant as a witness, even though he is available." In Emmons, the district court permitted the testifying medical examiner to discuss the concurring opinion of her colleague, a radiologist, regarding certain medical evidence. Additionally, the court admitted a letter written by the radiologist outlining his opinion. Emmons, 107 Nev. at 57, 807 P.2d at 720. This court concluded that the trial court did not err by admitting the testimony and letter pursuant to NRS 51.075 because the radiologist was a disinterested witness with no motive to lie. Id. at 57, 807 P.2d at 721.
Collman argues that this case is like Emmons because the doctors at the conference were disinterested witnesses with no motive to lie; therefore, "assurances of accuracy" exist. We conclude that while Dr. Sperber's colleagues may have been disinterested with no motive to lie, the requisite assurances of accuracy are not as strong as those in Emmons. Specifically, the radiologist in Emmons wrote a letter discussing the medical evidence and why he agreed with the medical examiner. It also appears that the two doctors consulted extensively. By contrast, in the present case, Dr. Sperber only showed his colleagues photographs of Damian's body. They did not possess molds of Collman's, Stach's, and Damian's teeth, they did not read reports by the state's expert, and they did not view Damian's body. Further, each colleague apparently looked over the photographs for only a few minutes each in between seminars at the conference. Accordingly, because calling those colleagues to the stand was the only way to test the accuracy of their hearsay statements, we conclude that Dr. Sperber's proposed testimony of his colleagues' opinions does not fall within the exception in NRS 51.075. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|