{ "id": 1455830, "name": "Eugene Donnell SCOTT v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Scott v. State", "decision_date": "1994-11-21", "docket_number": "CR 94-754", "first_page": "747", "last_page": "749", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "318 Ark. 747" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "888 S.W.2d 628" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "13 Ark. App. 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6141578 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/13/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "262 Ark. 758", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1675854 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "762" }, { "page": "296" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/262/0758-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 Ark. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1746958 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "160" }, { "page": "565" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/279/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 Ark. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1891434 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/297/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "425 U.S. 912", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6204066, 6202790, 6203853, 6202416, 6204241, 6202582, 6202999, 6203640, 6202233, 6203194, 6203389 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/425/0912-10", "/us/425/0912-04", "/us/425/0912-09", "/us/425/0912-02", "/us/425/0912-11", "/us/425/0912-03", "/us/425/0912-05", "/us/425/0912-08", "/us/425/0912-01", "/us/425/0912-06", "/us/425/0912-07" ] }, { "cite": "258 Ark. 601", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1621144 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/258/0601-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 381, "char_count": 5111, "ocr_confidence": 0.868, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2927140755700398e-07, "percentile": 0.6203187907866443 }, "sha256": "882ee1eb3b8c7f60120c9aad861c86adbdb64d64d0ecdbf6bcde129d38f0799a", "simhash": "1:c67a0c43ee089ff0", "word_count": 824 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:16.788487+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Eugene Donnell SCOTT v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice.\nAppellant, Eugene Donnell Scott, appeals a judgment of the Pulaski County Circuit Court convicting him of first degree murder and aggravated assault and sentencing him consecutively to thirty-five years and six years respectively in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Jurisdiction of this case is in this court pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(2). We find no error and affirm.\nAppellant\u2019s two convictions were the result of a single incident occurring at approximately 1:00 a.m. on January 18, 1993, outside the Butler Apartments in Little Rock. Appellant was charged with the murder of Linda Kitchens and the assault of Valerie Jackson. Appellant and Ms. Kitchens had been arguing inside an apartment. Ms. Kitchens was the sister of appellant\u2019s girlfriend, Dionne Dantzler. Ms. Kitchens left the apartment and entered the back seat of a Ford Taurus; Ms. Jackson was in the driver\u2019s seat. Ms. Dantzler struggled with appellant before and after he fired approximately seven or eight shots at the Taurus with Ms. Kitchens and Ms. Jackson inside. Ms. Kitchens suffered a single gunshot wound to the head. She survived neurosurgery but later died from the gunshot wound.\nAs his sole point for reversal, appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony of state\u2019s witness, Dr. Frank Joseph Paretti, a forensic pathologist from the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory who conducted the autopsy on Ms. Kitchens. Specifically, appellant challenges the following portion of Dr. Paretti\u2019s testimony relating the location of the entrance wound to Ms. Kitchens\u2019 head: \u201cWell, according to the neurosurgeons, the entrance wound was situated on the right parietal scalp.\u201d This statement was allowed after appellant\u2019s hearsay objection. The trial court sustained a later hearsay objection and then directed the prosecutor to limit the doctor\u2019s testimony to stating what his findings were based on the reports that he evaluated. Appellant also challenges Dr. Paretti\u2019s testimony that the neurosurgeons removed the entrance and exit wounds. Appellant reasons, then, that the autopsy was based on the neurosurgical charts, rather than Dr. Paretti\u2019s personal knowledge; therefore, appellant argues the testimony was inadmissible hearsay. Appellant contends the testimony, being hearsay, was admitted for the truth of the matter asserted \u2014 that the bullet entered from the right side. Appellant emphasizes the importance of the location of the entrance wound because that information was part of the evidence the jury was allowed to consider in determining whether appellant was the person who fired the shot that killed Ms. Kitchens.\nThe admissibility of expert testimony rests in the broad discretion of the trial court. Smith v. State, 258 Ark. 601, 528 S.W.2d 389, cert. denied, 425 U.S. 912 (1975). Consequently, we will not reverse a trial court\u2019s ruling on these issues unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of that discretion. Sims v. Safeway Trails, Inc., 297 Ark. 588, 764 S.W.2d 427 (1989).\nCiting Sims, 297 Ark. 588, 764 S.W.2d 427, and Surridge v. State, 279 Ark. 183, 650 S.W.2d 561 (1983), the state contends the challenged testimony was admissible under ARE Rule 703. Rule 703 provides that an expert witness may base his opinion on facts or data inadmissible in evidence if of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field. Surridge, 279 Ark. 183, 650 S.W.2d 561; Dixon v. Ledbetter, 262 Ark. 758, 561 S.W.2d 294 (1978). The test stated in Rule 703 is whether the expert\u2019s reliance is reasonable. Id. Dr. Paretti testified that his procedure for conducting autopsy examinations included examining reports from other medical agencies and police agencies. He also testified that, with respect to the gunshot wound proceeding from the right side to the left side of Ms. Kitchens\u2019 brain, he could not tell which was the entrance wound and exit wound without relying on the notes of the neurosurgeon. We cannot say it was unreasonable for Dr. Paretti to rely .on the neurosurgeons\u2019 reports.\nThe very purpose of Rule 703 is to allow the courts to follow the same practice as do experts themselves in forming their opinions, illustrated, for example, by allowing a physician to base his diagnosis on reports from other medical sources. Surridge, 279 Ark. at 160, 650 S.W.2d at 565; Dixon, 262 Ark. at 762, 561 S.W.2d at 296. Moreover, when an expert\u2019s testimony is based on hearsay, the lack of personal knowledge on the part of the expert does not mandate the exclusion of the testimony, rather it presents a jury question as to the weight of the testimony. Arkansas State Hwy. Comm\u2019n v. Schell, 13 Ark. App. 293, 683 S.W.2d 618 (1985). There was no abuse of discretion in allowing the challenged testimony.\nThe judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.", "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Sandy Moll, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Eugene Donnell SCOTT v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 94-754\n888 S.W.2d 628\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 21, 1994\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Sandy Moll, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0747-01", "first_page_order": 773, "last_page_order": 775 }