State v. Eric Scott Patterson, 98-LW-2761

• Decision Date: 04 June 1998
• Docket Number: CT97-0035,98-LW-2761
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ERIC SCOTT PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant Case
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ERIC SCOTT PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant

No. CT97-0035

98-LW-2761 (5th)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District Muskingum

June 4, 1998

JUDGES Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J., Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J., Hon John W. Wise, J.

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR95140A

APPEARANCES For Plaintiff-Appellee: MARK FLEEGLE, Muskingum County Prosecutor, 201 Law Administration Building, 27 North Fifth Street, Zanesville, OH 43701

For Defendant-Appellant: RICHARD E. GRAHAM, 8 East Long Street, Suite 424, Columbus, OH 43215

OPINION

Gwin J.

Defendant Eric Scott Patterson appeals a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio, convicting and sentencing him for one count of involuntary manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.04 (A) based upon the underlying felony of child endangerment in violation of R.C.2919.22 . The jury found appellant caused physical harm during the commission of the offense. Appellant assigns two errors to the trial court:

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND VIOLATED APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND HIS RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE UNDER THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BY EXCLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF APPELLANT'S EXPERT WITNESS.

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

APPELLANT'S CONVICTION VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN APPELLANT'S CONVICTION.

Appellant's three-year old daughter died on December 18, 1994. The State presented the testimony of the Franklin County Coroner, who gave as his expert medical opinion the child died as a result of blunt force, to the abdomen, causing subsequent perforation of her intestines, with peritonitis and leakage of bile into her abdomen. The coroner testified he believed the blunt force trauma occurred about a day before the child actually died. Specifically, the blunt force to the abdomen compressed the child's bowels against her back bone, causing the bowel to burst and its contents to leak into her abdomen. The child also had multiple bruises on her chest, abdomen, arms, legs, and back. The coroner who examined the child testified some of the bruises appeared old and healing, some appeared very recent, and some were post-mortem injuries.

The coroner testified the amount of force necessary to produce the injury the child suffered to her abdomen would be moderate to severe. The parents had reported the child fell down a flight of steps some time previous to the date. The coroner testified the history given at the hospital, and the findings on the autopsy, were inconsistent with a fall down a flight of stairs, although the coroner admitted he was not familiar with the stairs at the child's home. The coroner testified neither the internal injuries nor the external injuries would have resulted from a fall approximately a week prior to the death as reported by the parents. Additional, the placement and appearance of the bruises were not, in the coroner's opinion, the type ordinarily sustained in falling injuries.

The jury found appellant not guilty of murder, but guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense.

I

In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights by curtailing his ability to present a defense to the charges. Specifically, the trial court excluded the testimony of appellant's expert witness, Thomas Fuller. Appellant proffered Fuller's report, which indicated problems with the collection of evidence and maintenance of the crime scene. Fuller offered the opinion the bruises could have occurred within 24 hours prior to the child's death, or during resuscitation efforts by EMS and emergency room doctors. Fuller also hypothesized at least some of the injuries the child sustained had been inflicted by appellant's Rottweiler dog. The trial court excluded the evidence because it found Fuller, a criminologist, was not qualified to testify as an expert regarding medical matters and because the report had not been delivered to the State until the day before trial.

Appellant argues Fuller's report was not intended as a medical report, but rather as a report from a law enforcement professional with expertise in investigating matters such as collection of evidence and analysis of the evidence. Fuller's report did not dispute the conclusion regarding the cause of death, but focused on the source and type of blunt force trauma which resulted in the child's death. Appellant also argues Fuller's expertise was a matter of weight of the evidence for the jury to determine.

Evid. R. 702 provides:

A witness may testify as an expert if all of the following apply:

(A) The witness' testimony either relates to matters beyond the knowledge or experience possessed by lay persons or dispels a misconception common among lay persons.

(B) The witness is qualified as an expert

...