 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Abdoush10/20/2005
e killed the victim, it would break the chain of causation, absolving the defendant of criminal liability." Herndon, supra at 400. But ordinary medical negligence is foreseeable and, therefore, does not cut off criminal liability. Id. at 400 n 66, citing People v Webb, 163 Mich App 462, 465; 415 NW2d 9 (1987) (" he concept of an intervening cause is predicated upon foreseeability. For instance, a doctor's negligence in treating a wounded victim is foreseeable, therefore, it cannot be used by a defendant to exonerate himself from criminal liability for the wounding of the victim.")
The defense asserted that medical personnel may have improperly placed a needle in the wall of a blood vessel that caused the carotid artery injury. Despite defendant's assertion of medical error, defendant's own expert testified that no one committed malpractice. Additionally, during his testimony, Dr. Kravolich indicated that the victim's dissection occurred behind the jaw, and explained where on the neck an intravenous puncture in that area would have been made. He then testified "with reasonable medical certainty," that a needle could not have caused the injury because "the tear was very high." In short, although defendant speculates that the victim's carotid artery dissection was caused by medical personnel improperly placing a needle in the area of the carotid artery, there was simply no evidence that "thoroughly and extraordinarily incompetent medical care killed the victim." Herndon, supra at 400.
Defendant also contends that the evidence was insufficient because no autopsy was performed and therefore the "exact" cause of death cannot be determined. The medical examiner and both medical experts testified that the victim died from a carotid artery injury, which severed the blood supply to the brain. The medical examiner and plaintiff's expert testified that the victim's carotid artery injury was consistent with injuries caused by a pedestrian being hit with a van. The trier of fact was entitled to accept or reject any of the evidence presented, People v Perry, 460 Mich 55, 63; 594 NW2d 477 (1999), and "the prosecution need not negate every reasonable theory of innocence, but must only prove its own theory beyond a reasonable doubt in the face of whatever contradictory evidence is presented." People v Fetterley, 229 Mich App 511, 517; 583 NW2d 199 (1998). In sum, the evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for second-degree murder.
The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of second-degree murder; thus, defendant cannot demonstrate the actual prejudice necessary to support his motion for relief from judgment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for relief from judgment on this basis. MCR 6.508(D)(3)(b).
III. EXPERT WITNESS
Defendant also argues that the trial court erred by refusing to qualify his witness as an expert in trauma surgery. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
The qualification of a witness as an expert and the admissibility of expert witness testimony are in the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. People v Phillips, 246 Mich App 201, 203; 632 NW2d 154 (2001); People v Peebles, 216 Mich App 661, 667; 550 NW2d 589 (1996). An abuse of discretion will only be found "if an unprejudiced person, considering the facts on which the trial court acted, would say there was no justification or excuse for the ruling made." People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 419; 608 NW2d 502 (2000). A decision on a close evidentiary question ordinarily cannot be an abuse of discretion. People v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich 43,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|