AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Defendant, who, along with Casey Jim and Kevin Jim, was involved in an altercation with the Victim. The Victim died from stab wounds and blunt force trauma. The Defendant was subsequently convicted of second-degree murder (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the testimony of Dr. Ross Reichard about the autopsy and the cause of death violated the Defendant's right of confrontation since Dr. Reichard supervised but did not perform the autopsy on the Victim (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the testimony of Dr. Ross Reichard, who supervised but did not perform the autopsy on the Victim, violated the Defendant's right of confrontation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction of second-degree murder (para 6).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring): The Court held that the Defendant waived his argument regarding the violation of his right of confrontation because he failed to object to Dr. Reichard’s testimony during the trial. Furthermore, the defense counsel sought the admission of the autopsy report, which contained the contested testimony. The Court reasoned that a party cannot claim error on appeal regarding the admission of evidence that the party itself introduced. Additionally, the doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy a defendant's own invited mistakes. Since the autopsy report was admitted at the Defendant's request, any objection to Dr. Reichard’s testimony about the contents of that report was waived (paras 3-5).