State v. Bell

13 Citing cases

  1. State v. Fulton

    353 S.W.3d 451 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 8 times
    Finding no prejudice resulted from examiner's testimony who did not perform autopsies but reviewed them where the State neither offered nor admitted non-testifying examiner's autopsy report into evidence

    The motion argued that Dr. Gill performed the autopsies on Hooten and Windle but had since resigned and moved to California. Fulton alleged that under the holdings in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); State v. March, 216 S.W.3d 663 (Mo. banc 2007); and State v. Bell, 274 S.W.3d 592 (Mo.App. W.D.2009), “[t]he admission of Dr. Gill's report, and the testimony of Dr. Young, Dr. Dudley or Dr. Knight regarding, or based on, the contents or conclusions of Dr. Gill's report would constitute inadmissible hearsay.” The court denied Fulton's motion.

  2. State v. Martin

    291 S.W.3d 269 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that error in allowing medical examiner who did not conduct autopsy to testify about report of medical examiner who did conduct autopsy and admitting autopsy report to show that victim died of smoke inhalation was harmless, despite claim that autopsy was testimonial evidence and that medical examiner's testimony therefore violated Confrontation Clause, given that means of victim's death was not disputed at trial, and testimony was cumulative of other admissible evidence of forensic toxicologist that victim's toxicology report revealed fatal amounts of carbon monoxide in her body

    Id. at 667. While our Supreme Court has not decided whether an autopsy report is "testimonial," both the eastern and western districts of our court (in Davidson, 242 S.W.3d 409, and State v. Bell, 274 S.W.3d 592 (Mo.App. W.D. 2009), respectively) have faced this issue since the Court's decision in March and both have arguably concluded that an autopsy report is testimonial. In Davidson, the trial court admitted into evidence an autopsy report based on the testimony of a medical examiner who was not the examiner who had prepared it. 242 S.W.3d at 417.

  3. Walkup v. Denney

    Case No. 12-1107-CV-W-GAF-P (W.D. Mo. Jan. 10, 2013)

    An autopsy report prepared for the purpose of a criminal prosecution is a testimonial statement. State v. Bell, 274 S.W.3d 592, 595 (Mo. App. 2009). "As such, an autopsy report, or testimony regarding an autopsy report, cannot be admitted without testimony from the person who conducted the autopsy or prepared the report unless the defendant has had an opportunity for cross-examination." Id.

  4. State v. Ivy

    531 S.W.3d 108 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 5 times
    Observing a defendant could have "potentially removed the prejudice" from a late disclosure by asking for a continuance

    We agree that the expert should not have testified to the first examiner's opinions. See, e.g., State v. Bell, 274 S.W.3d 592, 595-96 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (finding it error for chief medical examiner to testify as to the conclusions of the doctor who conducted the autopsy). But we can find no error by the trial court when no objection was made to the expert's reference to the first examiner's opinion.

  5. State v. Walkup

    290 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 8 times

    An autopsy report prepared for the purpose of a criminal prosecution is a testimonial statement. State v. Bell, 274 S.W.3d 592, 595 (Mo.App. 2009). "As such, an autopsy report, or testimony regarding an autopsy report, cannot be admitted without testimony from the person who conducted the autopsy or prepared the report unless the defendant has had an opportunity for cross-examination."

  6. State v. Sauerbry

    447 S.W.3d 780 (W.D. Mo. 2014)

    We have held that the Confrontation Clause prohibits the introduction into evidence of an autopsy report prepared by an absent medical examiner, and testimony concerning the opinions and conclusions reached by the absent examiner. See, e.g.,State v. Bell, 274 S.W.3d 592, 595–96 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (“Dr. Dudley's testimony, to the extent she discussed Dr. Gill's opinions, was error and violated Mr. Bell's Confrontation Clause rights.”); State v. Davidson, 242 S.W.3d 409, 417 (Mo.App.E.D.2007) (admission of autopsy report prepared by absent medical examiner, and testimony as to absent examiner's conclusions, violated Confrontation Clause).

  7. State v. Sauerbry

    447 S.W.3d 780 (W.D. Mo. 2014)

    We have held that the Confrontation Clause prohibits the introduction into evidence of an autopsy report prepared by an absent medical examiner, and testimony concerning the opinions and conclusions reached by the absent examiner. See, e.g.,State v. Bell, 274 S.W.3d 592, 595–96 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (“Dr. Dudley's testimony, to the extent she discussed Dr. Gill's opinions, was error and violated Mr. Bell's Confrontation Clause rights.”); State v. Davidson, 242 S.W.3d 409, 417 (Mo.App.E.D.2007) (admission of autopsy report prepared by absent medical examiner, and testimony as to absent examiner's conclusions, violated Confrontation Clause).

  8. State v. Sauerbry

    447 S.W.3d 780 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)

    We have held that the Confrontation Clause prohibits the introduction into evidence of an autopsy report prepared by an absent medical examiner, and testimony concerning the opinions and conclusions reached by the absent examiner. See, e.g.,State v. Bell, 274 S.W.3d 592, 595–96 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (“Dr. Dudley's testimony, to the extent she discussed Dr. Gill's opinions, was error and violated Mr. Bell's Confrontation Clause rights.”); State v. Davidson, 242 S.W.3d 409, 417 (Mo.App.E.D.2007) (admission of autopsy report prepared by absent medical examiner, and testimony as to absent examiner's conclusions, violated Confrontation Clause).

  9. State v. Sauerbry

    447 S.W.3d 780 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)

    We have held that the Confrontation Clause prohibits the introduction into evidence of an autopsy report prepared by an absent medical examiner, and testimony concerning the opinions and conclusions reached by the absent examiner. See, e.g.,State v. Bell, 274 S.W.3d 592, 595–96 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (“Dr. Dudley's testimony, to the extent she discussed Dr. Gill's opinions, was error and violated Mr. Bell's Confrontation Clause rights.”); State v. Davidson, 242 S.W.3d 409, 417 (Mo.App.E.D.2007) (admission of autopsy report prepared by absent medical examiner, and testimony as to absent examiner's conclusions, violated Confrontation Clause).

  10. State v. Dudley

    303 S.W.3d 203 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 12 times

    On a number of occasions this Court has addressed whether, in the wake of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), a medical examiner other than the one who performed an autopsy may testify to the results of the autopsy, or to opinions which rely on the results of the autopsy, and whether an autopsy report prepared by an absent medical examiner may itself be admitted into evidence. See State v. Martin, 291 S.W.3d 269, 283-88 (Mo.App. S.D. 2009); State v. Haslett, 283 S.W.3d 769, 778 (Mo.App. S.D. 2009); State v. Walkup, 290 S.W.3d 764, 767-68 (Mo.App. W.D. 2009); State v. Bell, 274 S.W.3d 592, 595-96 (Mo.App. W.D. 2009); State v. Davidson, 242 S.W.3d 409, 417-18 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007). We need not revisit these issues here, however, because even if Dudley's rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by Dr. Knight's testimony, any error in the admission of her testimony was harmless, and cannot justify a new trial.