The Areas of My Expertise: North Carolina Court Precludes Expert Testimony in Jonathan Broyhill Trial

According to ABC 11,

Judge Paul C. Ridgeway ruled Tuesday that the defense cannot call a prison psychiatrist to testify in the Jonathan Broyhill trial.

Broyhill is charged with first-degree murder in the death of Democratic Party strategist Jamie Hahn and attempted murder for attacking her husband Nation when he intervened in April 2013.

The defense wanted to call the psychiatrist as a “fact witness” to testify about the medications Broyhill takes and the reason, but the prosecution objected – saying it was a ploy to call an expert witness to talk about Broyhill’s mental state.

Under the North Carolina rules of evidence, both sides must announce if they plan to call expert witnesses before a trial starts.

So, what are the relevant rules, and what was the defense trying to do?

Pursuant to Section 15A-905(c)(2) of the North Carolina General Statutes, the defense in a criminal case

Give notice to the State of any expert witnesses that the defendant reasonably expects to call as a witness at trial. Each such witness shall prepare, and the defendant shall furnish to the State, a report of the results of the examinations or tests conducted by the expert. The defendant shall also furnish to the State the expert’s curriculum vitae, the expert’s opinion, and the underlying basis for that opinion. The defendant shall give the notice and furnish the materials required by this subdivision within a reasonable time prior to trial, as specified by the court. Standardized fee scales shall be developed by the Administrative Office of the Courts and Indigent Defense Services for all expert witnesses and private investigators who are compensated with State funds.

Because the defense did not give notice to the State that it planned to call the prison psychiatrist as an expert witness, it could not call that psychiatrist as an expert at trial. This led to the defense to try to claim that it would only be calling the psychiatrist as a lay (fact) witness. 

Such a ploy has worked before. In State v. Hall, the prosecution failed to comply with its expert disclosure requirement with regard to a physician’s assistant. The prosecution, however, argued that it was merely offering the assistant as a fact witness to testify that the victim’s muscle tenderness. The court agreed, and the Court of Appeals of North Carolina agreed, concluding that the assistant

apprised the jury of his diagnosis of [the victim’s] muscle tenderness-an opinion informed by his specialized training and experience-he offered no opinion and brought no expertise to bear “as to the subject at hand” at defendant’s trial….Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in treating [the assistant] as a fact witness for discovery purposes.

Conversely, the court in the Jonathan Broyhill trial clearly classified the prison psychiatrist’s proposed testimony as expert testimony and excluded it based on noncompliance with Section 15A-905(c)(2).

-CM