Meadows v. State

• Decision Date: 12 February 1985
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 524
• Citation: Meadows v. State, 473 So.2d 582 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985)
• Parties: Donald Ray MEADOWS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 582

473 So.2d 582

Donald Ray MEADOWS v.STATE.

6 Div. 524.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 12, 1985.

On Return to Remand

May 14, 1985.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1985.

John R. Hollingsworth, Hollingsworth & Clary, Fayette, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jean Alexandra Webb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant, Donald Ray Meadows, was indicted and convicted of the offense of assault in the first degree, which is proscribed by § 13A-6-20(a)(1),Code of Alabama 1975.He was subsequently sentenced to a term of thirty years' imprisonment.

Although Meadows did not contest the sufficiency of the State's evidence either at trial or on appeal, we include a rendition of the facts presented by the prosecution as follows:

The victim, Michael Parrish, went to his half-brother's house on August 22, 1983, to see his ex-wife, Shirley, who was living there with the appellant, Meadows.He wanted to ask her about the identity of the father of her baby.When he arrived, only Meadows was there.Parrish asked Meadows if he could talk to Shirley about the baby and he assured him that he would not harm her.Meadows replied that he did not care.

After they drank a little rum, Parrish's brother joined them and the three of them walked up the road to a house where Parrish bought Meadows, his brother, and himself a beer.

Then, Meadows and Parrish's brother left and Parrish went back to his half-brother's house where he met Shirley.After Parrish and Shirley talked awhile, Meadows returned.They continued talking.After Parrish followed Shirley into a bedroom, Shirley got mad at him and hit him with a pair of scissors.Parrish took the scissors away and pushed Shirley.She then left and Meadows came into the room.Although Parrish did not have a weapon, or threaten Meadows that day, Meadows stabbed him in the side with what looked like a butcher's knife.Then Meadows walked out.

At trial, Parrish testified that, as a result of this injury, he stayed in the hospital almost three weeks and he presently has problems with his legs and hands to such an extent that he is unable to work.

The defense presented evidence that, as the result of an argument between Parrish and Shirley, Shirley armed herself against Parrish's advances with a pair of scissors.After Parrish seized the scissors, he slammed Shirley against the wall.Then Meadows entered the room, Parrish grabbed the scissors, and Meadows stabbed him.

During presentation of the prosecution's case, the physician who treated Mr. Parrish, Dr. Chandran, gave the following testimony:

"Q ... In August, 1983, did you have an occasion to treat a patient by the name of Michael Parrish?

"A Yes, sir.

"...

"Q What was his condition when you first saw him?

"A He was in shock.He had no blood pressure and no pulse and he was just completely confused and shouting something a little bit, but he was in a very serious condition and he was bleeding from the area where he was stabbed.

"Q Would you describe ... the nature of the injury that you worked on him for?

"A Yeah.He was brought inside the emergency room at which time he was in the condition I just described and since blood was gushing out of the wound here and he was in such a serious shock or the impression was that he was severely bleeding from something in the abdomen.So, within five or ten minutes we rolled him into the operating room and cut open the abdomen and we saw that there was a two inch wide cut going through and through the liver from the inferior surface to the superior surface almost near the anterior edge ... of the liver and actually we first saw almost about three thousand cc of fresh blood in the abdomen as soon as he opened up and it was all coming from the liver....

"...

"Q ... So, half of his blood was already lost?

"A Right ....And, we operated on him for seven hours and we gave him thirteen bottles of blood in that period....

"...

"Q ... Doctor, do you have a judgment as to the length of the wound from the entrance point on the body to the end of the cut there?

"...

"A The length would have been at least six inches from the point of entry...."

Then, the following occurred:

"Q ... Doctor, is this injury one that you would classify as a serious injury?

"MR. CLARY [Defense Counsel]:

Objection, that would be for the jury to decide.

"THE COURT: I think the doctor is qualified to testify to that. overruled.

"A I think it is one of the most severe injuries that we ever see, this kind of a liver injury.

"...

"Q In your opinion, Doctor, would Mr. Parrish have lived without this surgery?

"A No."

Meadows contends that the trial court erred in allowing, over specific objection, Dr. Chandran, an expert witness, ¹ to testify that injuries inflicted upon the victim of an alleged first degree assault were serious injuries.He specifically argues that this testimony consists of the physician's opinion on an ultimate fact in issue and that it constitutes a conclusion involving the application of a legal definition, for § 13A-6-20(a)(1),Code of Alabama 1975, defines the offense of assault in the first degree as follows: "A person commits the crime of assault in the first degree if ... [w]ith intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes serious physicial injury to any person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument."

The general rule, as reiterated by this court in Bell v. State, 435 So.2d 772, 775(Ala.Cr.App.1983), is as follows:

"It is a general principle of evidence that a witness may not testify to the ultimate issue in the case.Pointer v. State, 283 Ala. 320, 216 So.2d 713(1968)(fire of incendiary origin was set);Colvin v. State, 247 Ala. 55, 22 So.2d 548(1945)(fire of incendiary origin);Spooney v. State, 217 Ala. 219, 224, 115 So. 308(1928)(defendant was still driving recklessly);Wyatt v. State, 405 So.2d 154, 157(Ala.Cr.App.1981)(patient was a victim of child abuse);Lee v. State, 42 Ala.App. 101, 102, 154 So.2d 45, cert. denied, 275 Ala. 695, 154 So.2d 46(1963)(defendant killed son);Vinson v. State, 29 Ala.App. 234, 236, 194 So. 705(1940)(defendant murdered victim);Stewart v. State, 27 Ala.App. 315, 317, 172 So. 675(1937)(defendant raped victim);Taylor v. State, 20 Ala.App. 161, 163, 101 So. 160(1924)(defendant assaulted victim).

"However, a properly qualified expert may state his opinion as to the nature, cause, and effect of a wound or injury, Thomas v. State, 249 Ala. 358, 360, 31 So.2d 71(1947)...."

Our Supreme Court in Colvin v. State, 22 So.2d 548 at 549(1945), expressed the circumscription of the application of the general rule to the testimony of an expert, as follows:

"If [the expert's] ... testimony constituted an opinion on a matter of common knowledge, then it was inadmissible.Decatur Car Wheel & Manufacturing Co. v. Mehaffey, Adm'x, 128 Ala. 242, 29 So. 646[(1901)].On the other hand, if the subject involved a field appropriate for expert testimony, then the testimony was admissible even though it was in practical affirmation of a material issue in the case.Watson v. Hardaway-Covington Cotton Co., 223 Ala. 443, 137 So. 33[(1931)]."

This holding exemplifies the modern trend of authority, which is against absolute prohibition of expert testimony consisting of opinion upon an ultimate issue.E.g., Bell v. State, 435 So.2d at 776;C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 127.01(5)(3d ed. 1977);McCormick on Evidence, § 12(3d ed. 1984).

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Dr. Chandran to state his opinion of the extent of the victim's injuries.A review of pertinent precedent indicates that such testimony can reasonably be considered to be outside the realm of common knowledge.For example, in affirming the trial court's allowance of the expert's opinion that the particular wound was in fact calculated to produce death, the Supreme Court in Thomas v. State, 249 Ala. 358, 31 So.2d 71, 73(1947), stated that "[t]he nature of the wound or injury, its probable cause and effect can be stated by expert medical witnesses, or witnesses shown to be familiar with such questions...."In conclusion the court stated, "In view of the predicate laid, we are unwilling to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting witness Brown to express his opinion that a cut of the kind found on Chaffin was calculated to produce death."Id. In Chandler v. State, 35 Ala.App. 109, 45 So.2d 478, 479, cert. denied, 253 Ala. 565, 45 So.2d 480(1950), in ruling that the trial court properly permitted opinion evidence by the assault victim's physician as to possible death if cuts had reached the jugular vein, the court stated that "it was relevant and proper to prove by the attending physician and surgeon the relative positions of the arteries and veins in the neck and the dangerous character of the wounds."Likewise, in Buffalow v. State, 34 Ala.App. 418, 41 So.2d 417, 419, cert. denied, 252 Ala. 536, 41 So.2d 420(1949), the court concluded that, in an assault case, the attending physician was properly allowed to state that in his opinion the inflicted wounds were life-threatening, for "[t]he extent and nature of these wounds related to matters of material inquiry."See alsoLedbetter v. State, 24 Ala.App. 583, 139 So. 299(1932)(wherein the court determined that the trial court did not err in permitting the physician attending the assault victim to testify about the details and extent of the wounds and the effect of these wounds on the brain).

Finally, we find very appropriate the resolution of the exact issue now before us by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Hale v. State, 154 Tex.Cr. 630, 229 S.W.2d 796(1949).There, the attending physician of an aggravated assault victim was asked the following question: "[I]n the light of your treating and medical experience as a licensed and practicing physician and surgeon, state whether or not...