 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Massie v. State5/26/1998
numerous to mention."
Specifically with respect to establishing the time of a death, the intermediate appellate court accurately noted that "Kercheval took a forensic pathology course at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at the Walter Reed Medical Center that dealt with determining establishing time of death. The course Kercheval teaches at a local college includes a forensic pathology component.
The State concluded its presentation of Kercheval's qualifications by asking, "Do you commonly utilize techniques as part of your investigation of a homicide or suspicious death to attempt to determine the approximate time of death?" Kercheval replied, "Yes I do." The State then proffered Kercheval as an expert "in forensic chemistry and as an expert in crime scene reconstruction." The defense had no objection, but Massie flagged for the court his anticipation that the State would try to elicit an opinion from Kercheval "regarding pathological issues" to which Massie would object. The court received Kercheval as an expert in forensic chemistry and crime scene reconstruction, noting, "That's what he's being offered for." The State replied, "At this time, yes sir."
The State examined Kercheval for better than fifty pages of transcript, eliciting the details of Kercheval's collection of physical evidence at the crime scene. The witness then described his examination of the victim's body. He felt the extremities for temperature and for the presence of rigor mortis. Without objection he explained that usually rigor mortis becomes apparent to the touch in about one hour after death and that a body "will reach maximum stiffness anywhere from six to twenty-four hours" after death. He explained the body chemistry causes of rigor mortis. In Mrs. Massie's body it was present in the extremities and in some of the larger muscles, but it was not yet fixed.
Kercheval then began to describe algor mortis, a method of estimating the time of death based on the temperature of the body. He stated that there are "different factors which affect all these different means that we try to establish time of death." At this point Massie objected and a bench conference ensued.
The court reiterated that Kercheval had not been accepted as an expert in pathology, but the State argued that, based on Kercheval's course work, the State was offering Kercheval "as an expert in this limited area," inferentially, time of death. The State disclaimed offering Kercheval as a doctor, but said: "I'm not going to use any expertise in this area of time of death ... pathology as it relates to the time of death." We read the pause in this statement to indicate that the State was revising its general disclaimer and limiting the disclaimer to "pathology as it relates to time of death." The court responded that time of death is a medical question. The prosecutor countered by saying that Kercheval was qualified to testify as to his observations and that "I have not asked him for time of death."
The court agreed with the State's contention that Kercheval could testify describing "his observations as to what he has knowledge of ...." Massie then pointed out that his objection went to "the onset of rigor, the time frame involved." The court disagreed, expressing the belief that "it" had something to do with forensic chemistry and the reconstruction of the crime scene. The court stated: "I think he's qualified to testify if he observed signs of rigor mortis.
....
"And what those signs mean and what it meant to him and what he observed."
Massie again objected to the "bootstrapping," but the court replied: "I think the witness can aid the jury in its det
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|