finding that expert blood spatter lestimony that blood on certain clothing was consistent with wearer of clothing being person who stabbed victim was proper expert testimony, while subsequent testimony that, based upon expert witness's expertise, person who wore bloody clothing was not ""a passive observer of [the] stabbing" had gone too far and was inappropriate
How later courts described this case
- finding that expert blood spatter lestimony that blood on certain clothing was consistent with wearer of clothing being person who stabbed victim was proper expert testimony, while subsequent testimony that, based upon expert witness's expertise, person who wore bloody clothing was not ""a passive observer of [the] stabbing" had gone too far and was inappropriate
- presuming that the jury found evidence sufficient to support both malice and felony murder where defendant was charged alternatively with malice and felony murder and there were no separate verdict forms for each type of murder
- determining evidence sufficient where there was evidence of defensive wounds on victim, living room in disarray, and witness testimony of hearing loud banging
- pictures depicting nature, extent and location of wounds, including defensive wounds, held relevant
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LANE, Judge,
concurring in result.
I do not believe that the majority’s characterization of Appellant’s nod of the head as an adoptive admission is either' correct or necessary. The majority finds that the nod was a non verbal action. However, if you accept the definition of the word “verbal” as being “of, relating to, or associated with *128 words” 1 then a nod of the head becomes a verbal action since it is accepted in our society as an action conveying agreement or the same meaning as the word “yes”. Therefore, Appellant gave a positive response to the question asked, and it is up to the jury to determine the meaning of the answer.
. Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary, Riverside Press, 1984, p. 1281.