State v. SOSNOWICZ, 229 Ariz. 90

Sosnowicz convicted of second-degree murder and three counts of aggravated assault arising from a Hummer striking J.P. after an altercation at a bar parking lot.
Maricopa County medical examiner Dr. Stano testified that the cause of death was blunt force trauma and the manner of death was homicide, based on autopsy and police information.
Defense objected that homicide is a legal conclusion and that the medical examiner relied on police reports, but the trial court overruled.
Jury found Sosnowicz guilty on all counts and the court sentenced him to 22 years for murder with concurrent 8.5-year sentences on the aggravated assaults.
On appeal Sosnowicz argued the manner-of-death testimony was inadmissible under Rule 702/704 and should have been excluded under Rule 403 as unfairly prejudicial.
Arizona Court of Appeals held the testimony was inadmissible but harmless error, affirming the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dr. Stano’s testimony that the manner of death was homicide was admissible.	Sosnowicz argues the opinion was a legal conclusion not based on medical examination.	Sosnowicz contends the testimony misled the jury and invaded legal causation.	Admissibility rejected; harmless error affirmed.

State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191 (Ariz. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard for expert testimony; Rule 702/704 considerations)
State v. Gillies, 135 Ariz. 500 (Ariz. 1983) (medical examiner testimony on ultimate issue limited; context-specific)
State v. Vining, 645 A.2d 20 (Me. 1994) (medical examiner’s homicide determination based on police history deemed inadmissible)
State v. Jamerson, 153 N.J. 318, 708 A.2d 1183 (N.J. 1998) (medical examiner’s homicide determination based on case-specific factors may be inadmissible)
State v. Bradford, 618 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. 2000) (pathologist’s homicide determination based on external findings; distinguishable facts)