finding trial court properly permitted a fingerprint expert to testify that another expert had checked and concurred with the testifying expert's conclusion, because under the standard procedures followed by the expert he could not have arrived at and testified to his opinion without the verification by the other expert
How later courts described this case
- finding trial court properly permitted a fingerprint expert to testify that another expert had checked and concurred with the testifying expert's conclusion, because under the standard procedures followed by the expert he could not have arrived at and testified to his opinion without the verification by the other expert
- stating that “admission of evidence which is competent for a restricted purpose will not be held error in the absence of a request by the defendant for limiting instructions.”
- testifying expert's statement that he based his opinion, finding fingerprint match between defendant’s prints and those found at crime scene, in part on the opinion of a nontestifying expert was properly admitted
- defendant not entitled to assign error to trial court’s failure to provide limiting instruction for evidence admissible under Rule 703 when defendant objected to admission of evidence at trial but did not request limiting instruction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*415 Justice WEBB
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority. I do not believe the testimony by Mr. Navarro that his fingerprint identification was verified by another latent examiner was a fact or datum upon which he relied in forming his opinion. As I read the testimony, Mr. Navarro formed his opinion and then gave the materials to another examiner who formed his opinion. The witness’ testimony as to the opinion of the second examiner should have been excluded as hearsay testimony.
In the cases cited by the majority, the experts were allowed to testify to matters upon which they based their opinions. Not one of them testified that after he had formed an opinion, the opinion was verified by another expert. The majority says that it is clear that “without verification of his own opinion by another examiner the witness could not have arrived at, and testified to, a final conclusion regarding the fingerprint.” This may be true. I do not believe it follows that the opinion of the other examiner forms a part of the basis for the witness’ opinion. The witness had formed his opinion at the time the verification was made. The verification may have made him more confident that he was right but he did not form his opinion based on the verification.
I vote for a new trial.