Smith v. Commonwealth ( 2003 )

PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, and
Lemons, JJ., and Carrico, 1 S.J.
JAMES ALLEN SMITH, JR.
v. Record No. 021583 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY
February 28, 2003
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
In this appeal, James Allen Smith, Jr., argues that his
convictions for first-degree murder and use of a firearm in
the commission of first-degree murder should be reversed
because the trial court erred in admitting expert opinion
testimony on "blood spatter analysis." 2 Because we conclude
that blood spatter analysis is a matter for expert testimony
and that a sufficient evidentiary foundation for that opinion
testimony was established in this case, we will affirm the
convictions.
On February 7, 2000, Officer Mark Jones went to Smith's
residence in Henrico County in response to a call. In a
bedroom, Jones found Tracey L. Chandler lying on her back on
the bed with her feet on the floor. There were six bullet
entry wounds in her body: behind her right ear, in the right
1
Chief Justice Carrico presided and participated in the
hearing and decision of this case prior to the effective date
of his retirement on January 31, 2003.
2
This analysis is alternately referred to as "blood stain
pattern analysis" and "blood splatter analysis." We use the
phrases interchangeably in this opinion.
side of her chest, in her mouth, in her right hand, and above
her left and right knee caps. 3 Dr. Deborah Kay, the assistant
medical examiner, testified that Chandler bled to death,
although the wound behind her ear was potentially lethal.
Smith was subsequently indicted for the first-degree
murder of Chandler and the use of a firearm in the commission
of first-degree murder in violation of Code §§ 18.2-32, -53.1.
At trial, Smith testified that he shot Chandler in self-
defense when she attacked him with a needle during an argument
over Chandler's drug use. Smith testified that Chandler was
standing when he fired the first three shots and that she sat
down and rose again before he fired again.
Over Smith's objections, Norman Tiller testified as an
expert in blood stain pattern analysis. Tiller stated that,
based on his analysis of the impact spatter blood stains on
the victim's pants, Chandler was not standing when she was
shot. The jury convicted Smith of the crimes charged, and the
trial court sentenced him to a total of 28 years'
imprisonment. The Court of Appeals refused Smith's petition
for appeal by order. Smith v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2402-
01-2, June 20, 2002.
3
One bullet may have passed through Chandler's hand into
her leg.
2
We awarded Smith an appeal limited to the assignments of
error regarding the admission of the blood stain pattern
analysis. Smith contends that blood spatter analysis is not a
reliable science, and that the trial court should not have
allowed "a purported expert" to offer opinion testimony on the
subject. Smith also contends that, even if such analysis is
reliable, the opinion testimony should not have been admitted
in this case because the Commonwealth failed to establish a
sufficient evidentiary basis or foundation for such opinion
testimony. We consider these arguments in order.
I.
As explained by Tiller, blood stain pattern analysis is
the analysis of the "shape, size and configuration of blood
stains at a crime scene or on a piece of physical evidence."
Depending on the type of stain and the circumstances, a number
of different conclusions can be reached, such as the cause of
the stain, its point of origin, and the direction in which the
blood droplets were going at impact. The analysis involves
the application of principles of physics, chemistry, biology,
and mathematics. Many jurisdictions have held that blood
spatter analysis is reliable because it is "clearly a well–
recognized discipline, based upon the laws of physics, which
undoubtedly assist[s] the jurors in understanding what
occurred." State v. Rodgers, 812 P.2d 1208, 1212 (Idaho
3
1991). The Supreme Court of Minnesota stated that "the
results of blood splatter analysis are generally accepted in
the scientific as well as the judicial community" noting that
because the techniques are based on "the well-settled sciences
of chemistry and physics, the reliability of the technique may
be appropriate for judicial notice." State v. Moore, 458
N.W.2d 90, 98 & n.6 (Minn. 1990). See also Danny R. Veilleux,
Annotation, Admissibility, in Criminal Prosecution, of Expert
Opinion Evidence as to "Blood Splatter" Interpretation, 9
A.L.R. 5th 369, §§ 1(a), 7(a)(1993).
Smith argues that this analysis and its attendant
conclusions should not be accepted because no reliable and
valid method exists to test it. The lack of validity of blood
spatter analysis, according to Smith, rests on the fact that
human beings cannot be used to conduct experiments testing
theories of the "science." Shooting bullets into blood soaked
sponges or other substances cannot accurately replicate the
results of blood spatter from wounds to human beings, Smith
asserts.
We held that blood spatter evidence was admissible expert
testimony in Compton v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 716, 727, 250
S.E.2d 749, 756 (1979), and Stewart v. Commonwealth, 245 Va.
222, 240, 427 S.E.2d 394, 406 (1993). In Stewart, we rejected
the defendant's contention that blood spatter evidence was not
4
reliable. Id. To the extent that the ability to test a
method of analysis is relevant in assessing whether expert
opinion based on that discipline is admissible, we note that
many of the specific physical elements of blood spatter
analysis are capable of being tested using the laws of physics
and chemistry, and by employing principles of gravity,
inertia, and viscosity. In accordance with other
jurisdictions, we adhere to the view that this form of
scientific analysis can form a basis for admissible proof upon
an appropriate foundation. Accordingly, we conclude that the
trial court did not err in concluding that blood spatter
analysis was a reliable science based on our prior decisions
affirming the admission of such evidence.
II.
Smith also asserts that, even if blood spatter analysis
is a reliable science, Tiller's testimony in this case should
not have been admitted because the Commonwealth failed to
provide an adequate foundation.
At trial, Tiller testified about the characteristics of
the shapes and patterns of blood stains depending on the
source of the blood and other factors. Tiller explained that
when a bullet enters the body and blood leaves the body
through the entry wound, the type of blood stain is known as
"impact spatter." The blood under these conditions, following
5
"the path of least resistance," exits the entry wound in a
conical pattern, and eventually falls to the ground. The
greater the force of the impact, the smaller the droplets of
blood that are expelled from the wound. Tiller testified that
when these droplets strike a surface at a perpendicular angle,
the resulting blood stain is circular. If the resulting blood
stain is elliptical in shape, it may be concluded that the
blood droplet struck the surface at an angle.
Tiller assumed that the 18 blood spots found on the leg
of Chandlers' pants were her blood. All but two of the blood
spots on the pants were circular in shape, which is consistent
with the blood striking the pants at a perpendicular angle.
Furthermore, Tiller found almost no impact spatter blood on
the pants below the knees, on the back of the pants, or on
Chandler's shirt. Based on these facts, Tiller concluded that
Chandler was not standing at the time she was shot.
Tiller also testified that, most commonly, the source of
impact spatter is a head wound because of the great amount of
blood in the head and because the head is not generally
covered with clothing which could deflect or block the direct
travel of the blood. Therefore, in Tiller's opinion, the
wound to Chandler's mouth was the most likely source of the
spots of blood found on Chandler's pants.
6
Tiller testified that he could not rule out Chandler's
hand as a source of the blood spatter on the pants, but that,
in his opinion, her hand was not a likely source. Chandler's
hand showed a bullet entry wound on the back and the exit
wound made by that bullet was on her right palm. Exit wounds,
according to Tiller, cause more blood spatter than entry
wounds. If the hand wound had been the source of the blood on
Chandler's pants, Tiller testified that he would have also
expected to see blood spatter below the knees of her pants and
above the waistline on her shirt. There was no such blood.
Smith argues that no adequate foundation was laid for
Tiller's opinion testimony because only three of the 18 blood
spots on the pant's legs had been proven to be Chandler's
blood, because Tiller could not rule out the wound to
Chandler's hand as the source of the blood spots, and because
there was no evidence that stains on the bedclothes were blood
or how long the blood stains had been on the pants.
Determining whether an adequate foundation has been laid
for the admission of an expert opinion is an exercise of the
trial court's discretion, to be made in light of all the
testimony produced. See Brown v. Corbin, 244 Va. 528, 531,
423 S.E.2d 176, 178 (1992). In this case, the trial court
held that the evidence provided a sufficient basis for the
expert's opinion testimony because (1) the victim's blood had
7
been identified by DNA testing within the same area on each of
the two legs of the pants allowing the jury to "reasonably
conclude that the other spots were also the victim's blood;"
and (2) there was sufficient basis to allow the expert to
opine on which wound most likely caused the blood spatter on
the pants. The trial court concluded that the objections made
by Smith went to the weight of the evidence, not its
admissibility. We cannot say, based on the record in this
case, that the trial court abused its discretion in
determining that the Commonwealth produced an adequate factual
foundation for the introduction of Tiller's expert opinion
testimony.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we will affirm the
judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
8