Present: All the Justices
DARYL RENARD ATKINS
v. Record No. 052348 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER
June 8, 2006
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF YORK COUNTY
N. Prentis Smiley, Jr., Judge
On prior occasions, we have addressed various issues
regarding Daryl Renard Atkins’ conviction for capital
murder and the imposition of the death penalty. Today, we
review a jury verdict finding that Atkins is not mentally
retarded and the circuit court’s reinstatement of Atkins’
death sentence in light of that verdict. Although Atkins
raises numerous assignments of error, we conclude that the
circuit court erred in two respects: (1) by admitting
testimony from one of the Commonwealth’s expert witnesses;
and (2) by informing the venire that another jury had
already sentenced Atkins to death. Thus, we will reverse
the circuit court’s judgment and remand this case for a new
proceeding to determine whether Atkins is mentally
retarded.
I. Procedural History
In February 1998, a jury convicted Atkins of the
November 1996 capital murder of Eric Michael Nesbitt during
the commission of robbery.1 See Code § 18.2-31(4). During
the penalty phase of the bifurcated trial, the jury fixed
Atkins’ sentence at death. Upon review by this Court
pursuant to Code § 17.1-313, we affirmed his conviction for
capital murder, but vacated the imposition of the death
sentence, and remanded the case to the Circuit Court of
York County for a new sentencing hearing. Atkins v.
Commonwealth, 257 Va. 160, 180, 510 S.E.2d 445, 457 (1999)
(Atkins I).
At the re-sentencing, a different jury again fixed
Atkins’ punishment at death on the capital murder
conviction. The Circuit Court of York County imposed the
death penalty in accordance with the jury verdict. In the
subsequent review by this Court, we upheld “the imposition
of the death penalty.” Atkins v. Commonwealth, 260 Va.
375, 379, 534 S.E.2d 312, 314 (2000) (Atkins II).
The United States Supreme Court then granted Atkins a
writ of certiorari on the sole issue “[w]hether the
execution of mentally retarded individuals convicted of
capital crimes violates the Eighth Amendment?” Atkins v.
Virginia, 534 U.S. 809, 809 (2001). Establishing a
categorical rule that execution of mentally retarded
1
Atkins was also convicted of abduction, robbery, and
related firearm charges. See Code §§ 18.2-48, -58, and -
53.1, respectively.
2
individuals is excessive punishment, and therefore violates
the Eighth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court
reversed our judgment and remanded the case to this Court
for further proceedings. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304,
320-21 (2002) (Atkins III).
In response to the United State Supreme Court’s ruling
in Atkins III, the General Assembly enacted emergency
legislation defining the term “[m]entally retarded” and
establishing procedures for determining whether a defendant
convicted of capital murder is mentally retarded. Code
§§ 8.01-654.2, 19.2-264.3:1.1, -264.3:1.2, -264.3:3. Part
of that legislation specifically addressed the procedure to
be followed in cases when defendants, such as Atkins, had
been sentenced to death prior to the decision of the United
States Supreme Court in Atkins III and the enactment of the
emergency mental retardation legislation. Code § 8.01-
654.2. Following the enactment of the legislation, and
pursuant to the mandate of the United States Supreme Court
in Atkins III, this Court remanded Atkins’ case to the
Circuit Court of York County for the “‘sole purpose of
making a determination of mental retardation.’” Atkins v.
Commonwealth, 266 Va. 73, 79, 581 S.E.2d 514, 517 (2003)
(quoting Code § 8.01-654.2) (Atkins IV).
3
Upon remand, a third jury found that Atkins did not
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is
mentally retarded under Code § 19.2-264.3:1.1(A).2 Based on
that verdict, the Circuit Court of York County reinstated
Atkins’ death sentence. We awarded Atkins an appeal from
the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rules 5:17 and/or
5:22.
II. Analysis
Atkins assigns 38 errors to the judgment of the
circuit court. Although he did not brief some of the
assignments of error, see Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va.
451, 478, 619 S.E.2d 16, 31 (2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S.
___ (2006) (“[f]ailure to adequately brief an assignment of
error is considered a waiver”), and others are waived for
various reasons, we will specifically consider only three
assignments of error:
2
The term “[m]entally retarded” is defined as
a disability, originating before the age of 18
years, characterized concurrently by (i)
significantly subaverage intellectual functioning
as demonstrated by performance on a standardized
measure of intellectual functioning administered
in conformity with accepted professional
practice, that is at least two standard
deviations below the mean and (ii) significant
limitations in adaptive behavior as expressed in
conceptual, social and practical adaptive skills.
Code § 19.2-264.3:1.1(A).
4
No. 3 – the circuit court erred “by informing
[the] jurors that, after a prior valid juror
determination of sentence was made, the Supreme
Court of the United States intervened by ruling
that the execution of persons with mental
retardation is cruel and unusual punishment, and
that their decision regarding mental retardation
would determine whether the prior valid juror
determination of sentence would actually be
imposed;”
No. 13 – the circuit court erred “by sustaining
the Commonwealth’s objection to the
qualifications and expert testimony of Dr.
Richard Kelley;” and
No. 15 – the circuit court erred “by overruling
[Atkins’] objection to the expert qualification
and subsequent testimony of Dr. Stanton E.
Samenow as a Commonwealth witness.”
We will first address No. 15, then No. 3, and conclude with
No. 13.
A. Dr. Samenow
On the motion of the Commonwealth, pursuant to Code
§ 19.2-264.3:1.2(F)(1), the circuit court appointed Stanton
E. Samenow, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, to evaluate
Atkins “concerning the existence or absence of [Atkins’]
mental retardation.” The qualifications of an expert
appointed at the request of the Commonwealth are governed
by subsection A of Code § 19.2-264.3:1.2. That subsection
requires that
[t]he mental health expert appointed pursuant to
this section shall be (a) a psychiatrist, a
clinical psychologist or an individual with a
doctorate degree in clinical psychology, (b)
5
skilled in the administration, scoring and
interpretation of intelligence tests and measures
of adaptive behavior and (c) qualified by
experience and specialized training, approved by
the Commissioner of Mental Health, Mental
Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, to
perform forensic evaluations.
At Atkins’ mental retardation hearing, the
Commonwealth moved to admit Dr. Samenow as an expert in
“clinical psychology with a specialty in forensic
psychology.” On voir dire, Atkins asked Dr. Samenow the
following questions regarding his qualifications and the
timing of an intellectual functioning test he administered
to Atkins:
Q. Can you tell me [Dr. Samenow], do you know
what a standardized measure for assessing
adaptive behavior is, what that phrase means?
A. Adaptive behavior?
Q. A standardized measure.
A. Yes, it would be giving a test, if such a
test were appropriate, to try to assess the
person’s functioning in life, conceptually,
practically, socially.
Q. Could you name a few?
A. The ABS,[3] the test that has been given, I do
not give it.
Q. Okay, any others that you know of?
A. No.
3
The correct name of the test is the Adaptive Behavior
Assessment System-II (ABAS-II).
6
Q. And have you ever given it?
A. No, I have not.
Q. You’ve never used one, you say?
A. I have not used the test of adaptive
functioning.
Q. Any test of adaptive functioning?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. And you administered in 2004 an IQ
test; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What’s the name of that test?
A. The Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale.
Q. And you know that two days before you
administered it, it had already been
administered?
A. Oh, I absolutely do.[4]
Q. Is it accepted professional practice to
administer that test two days after someone else
has administered it?
4
During voir dire, Dr. Samenow testified that he
administered a Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III)
to Atkins two days after a clinical psychologist, who
testified for Atkins, had given Atkins the test. After
Atkins’ clinical psychologist administered the WAIS-III, he
allegedly advised Atkins not to take the test again. When
Dr. Samenow arrived at the prison where Atkins was
incarcerated, Atkins informed Dr. Samenow that he had
already taken the WAIS-III and did not feel he should take
it again. Dr. Samenow was not previously aware of the
recent administration of the WAIS-III and elected to repeat
it because he did not have another test for intellectual
functioning with him.
7
A. One knows one’s going to get a practice
effect and ordinarily one would not.
Q. Let’s stay with the question, please. Is it
accepted professional practice to administer the
WAIS two days after someone else has?
A. Generally not.
After this exchange, Atkins moved to disallow Dr.
Samenow’s testimony on the grounds that Dr. Samenow had not
conducted the evaluation of Atkins in accordance with the
provisions of Code § 19.2-264.3:1.1(B)(1) and (2) because
he had not assessed Atkins’ intellectual functioning in
accordance with accepted professional practice and had not
administered any standardized measure for assessing
adaptive behavior. In response to a question from the
Commonwealth during additional voir dire, Dr. Samenow
explained why he did not give a standardized measure of
adaptive behavior to Atkins, “I don’t think it would have
been a valid or reliable measure because the individual,
Daryl Atkins, had been incarcerated for quite some time.
It would have had to have been retroactive. I think there
are many ways to assess adaptive functioning that would be
more informative.”
During further cross-examination, Atkins asked Dr.
Samenow how many assessments for mental retardation he had
performed during his career. Dr. Samenow responded that
8
Atkins was the “[f]irst and last.” Atkins continued with
these questions:
Q. So you have no experience whatsoever
administering assessments that are standard – I’m
sorry, standardized measures generally accepted
in the field for adaptive behavior, you’ve never
done one?
A. No, I’m constantly assessing adaptive
behavior, but I have not given these tests of
adaptive behavior.
. . . .
Q. All right. So having never administered one
of these tests, you have no clinical experience
or judgment with respect to when, where or how it
ought to be administered?
A. Well, if I have never administered the test,
then I’m not an expert as to the use of those
tests.
The circuit court then asked Dr. Samenow whether he “really
[felt] comfortable” rendering an opinion regarding Atkins’
mental retardation. Dr. Samenow answered, “[A]bsolutely I
do, because I have spent a career assessing the functioning
of individuals.”
After the voir dire of Dr. Samenow concluded, Atkins
re-iterated his objection to Dr. Samenow’s testifying on
the subject of Atkins’ mental retardation for the reasons
previously stated and on the additional ground that Dr.
Samenow did not have the qualifications set forth in Code
§ 19.2-264.3:1.2(A). The circuit court overruled Atkins’
9
motion and determined that Dr. Samenow was qualified to
render an opinion on mental retardation.
Atkins now argues, as he did before the circuit court,
that Dr. Samenow was not qualified to testify as an expert
because he did not meet the requirements of Code § 19.2-
264.3:1.2(A), and because he did not conduct his evaluation
of Atkins in accordance with the provisions of Code § 19.2-
264.3:1.1(B)(1) and (2). In response, the Commonwealth
asserts that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion
in allowing Dr. Samenow to testify as an expert on the
issue whether Atkins is mentally retarded. According to
the Commonwealth, Dr. Samenow is a licensed clinical
psychologist with a specialty in forensic psychology; he
has performed hundreds of forensic evaluations; and he
explained why he administered an intellectual functioning
test to Atkins two days after another clinical psychologist
had done so and why he did not use a standardized measure
to assess Atkins’ adaptive behavior.
As the Commonwealth argues, “ ‘[t]he admission of
expert testimony is committed to the sound discretion of
the trial judge, and [this Court] will reverse a trial
court’s decision only where that court has abused its
discretion.’ ” Tarmac Mid-Atl., Inc. v. Smiley Block Co.,
250 Va. 161, 166, 458 S.E.2d 462, 465 (1995) (citation
10
omitted). But, “[w]here a statute designates express
qualifications for an expert witness, the witness must
satisfy the statutory criteria in order to testify as an
expert.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 269 Va. 262, 273, 609
S.E.2d 4, 11 (2005). In passing the emergency mental
retardation legislation, the General Assembly required,
among other things, that a mental health expert appointed
under Code § 19.2-264.3:1.2(A) must be “skilled in the
administration, scoring and interpretation of . . .
measures of adaptive behavior.” (Emphasis added.) We are
bound by the plain meaning of the unambiguous language used
by the General Assembly. Britt Constr., Inc. v. Magazzine
Clean, LLC, 271 Va. 58, 62, 623 S.E.2d 886, 888 (2006).
During voir dire, Dr. Samenow acknowledged that he had
never administered a standardized measure of adaptive
behavior. Although Dr. Samenow explained that he
constantly assesses individuals’ adaptive behavior, he
admitted that, since he has never administered such tests,
he is not an expert as to the use of them. In other words,
Dr. Samenow is not “skilled” in the administration of
measures of adaptive behavior. Accordingly, he would also
lack the requisite expertise in scoring and interpreting
such tests. Thus, on the record before us, we conclude
that the Commonwealth failed to establish that Dr. Samenow
11
possessed the necessary qualifications set forth in Code
§ 19.2-264.3:1.2(A) and therefore, the circuit court abused
its discretion by allowing Dr. Samenow to testify and
express an expert opinion with regard to whether Atkins is
mentally retarded.
The Commonwealth argues, however, that any such error
was harmless because of the overwhelming proof that Atkins
is not mentally retarded. In Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va.
253, 546 S.E.2d 728 (2001), this Court adopted the
following test for non-constitutional harmless error:
“If, when all is said and done, the conviction is
sure that the error did not influence the jury,
or had but slight effect, the verdict and the
judgment should stand . . . . But if one cannot
say, with fair assurance, after pondering all
that happened without stripping the erroneous
action from the whole, that the judgment was not
substantially swayed by the error, it is
impossible to conclude that substantial rights
were not affected . . . . If so, or if one is
left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot
stand.”
Id. at 260, 546 S.E.2d at 731-32 (quoting Kotteakos v.
United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946)).
Whether Atkins is mentally retarded was a factual
issue for the jury to determine. The Commonwealth
presented testimony from Dr. Samenow and one other forensic
clinical psychologist, both of whom opined that Atkins is
not mentally retarded. In contrast, two clinical
12
psychologists testified on behalf of Atkins and opined that
he does meet the statutory requirements for mental
retardation.5 This evidence presented the jury with the
classic “battle of the experts.” It was therefore the
jury’s task to resolve the conflicts in the expert
testimony and to decide which expert or experts were worthy
of belief. See Todd v. Edwin L. Williams, II, M.D., LTD.,
242 Va. 178, 181, 409 S.E.2d 450, 452 (1991). Since the
jury decided that Atkins is not mentally retarded, it
appears that the jury placed more weight on the testimony
of at least one of the Commonwealth’s two expert witnesses.
As there is no way for this Court to determine whose
testimony the jury actually accepted in reaching its
verdict, we cannot say that the circuit court’s error in
allowing Dr. Samenow to testify did not influence the jury.
Therefore, the error was not harmless.
Our conclusion, however, does not mean that a mental
health expert appointed to assess a defendant’s mental
retardation must administer a standardized measure of
adaptive behavior to the defendant in to order to testify
as an expert on the issue of the defendant’s mental
retardation. To the contrary, such expert needs only to be
5
Another clinical psychologist testifying for Atkins
opined that Atkins has substandard intellectual
functioning.
13
“skilled in the administration, scoring and interpretation
of intelligence tests and measures of adaptive behavior.”
Code § 19.2-264.3:1.2(A). The requirements for assessing a
defendant’s mental retardation are different and are set
forth in Code § 19.2-264.3:1.1. One requirement is that
“[t]he assessment shall include at least one standardized
measure generally accepted by the field of psychological
testing for assessing adaptive behavior and appropriate for
administration to the particular defendant being assessed,
unless not feasible.” Code § 19.2-264.3:1.1(B)(2).
Therefore, if an expert, skilled in administering,
scoring and interpreting standardized measures of adaptive
behavior, determines in his or her opinion that such a test
is not appropriate for a particular defendant or that
administering a standardized measure of adaptive behavior
is not feasible, the expert can still testify as to the
defendant’s mental retardation and explain why a measure of
adaptive behavior was not administered to the defendant.
The decision about which tests to administer to a defendant
and the manner in which they are given goes to the weight
to be accorded an expert’s opinion regarding mental
retardation, not to the admissibility of the opinion.6 See
6
The same conclusion applies to Dr. Samenow’s decision
to administer the WAIS-III two days after another clinical
14
Hetmeyer v. Commonwealth, 19 Va. App. 103, 108-09, 448
S.E.2d 894, 898 (1994) (“A challenge to an ‘experts . . .
methods and determinations . . ., even by other experts,
does not render inadmissible expert opinion based on those
. . . methods and computations’ but goes to the ‘weight of
the evidence,’ raising ‘factual questions to be determined
by the jury.’ " (citations omitted)). Cf. Bitar v. Rahman,
272 Va. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (2006) (this day
decided) (certain objections challenged “the admissibility
of evidence rather than the sufficiency of evidence”).
B. Juror Information
During pretrial proceedings, Atkins moved the circuit
court to refrain from informing the jury about any of his
prior offenses, including the underlying capital murder
conviction and death sentence, and the fact that he is on
“death row.” He also requested that the jurors not be told
the consequences of their verdict, i.e., that finding
Atkins mentally retarded means his death sentence would not
be carried out.
The circuit court overruled Atkins’ motion on the
premise that it was in the best interest of the parties if
psychologist had given the test to Atkins. Contrary to
Atkins’ argument, the mere fact that Dr. Samenow did not
administer the WAIS-III to Atkins in accordance with
accepted professional practice would not render his opinion
inadmissible.
15
the jury knew the truth surrounding the proceeding.7 The
circuit court reasoned that the jury needed to be aware of
the consequences of its actions. In accordance with its
ruling, the circuit court gave the following information to
the venire:
This case is a case that is going to be
unique in the annals of judicial history. Daryl
Atkins, in 1996, was charged with committing the
offense of capital murder, abduction, and robbery
and use of firearms in those related offenses.
In 1998 he pled not guilty, was found guilty
and ultimately sentenced to the ultimate penalty
of death and several other lengthy prison terms.
His case was appealed throughout our
judicial system ultimately reaching the United
States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme
Court determined that by a consensus of states
the law now would be that it would be cruel and
unusual punishment, pursuant to the Eighth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, to
execute someone who may be mentally retarded.
May be mentally retarded. They remanded the
issue of mental retardation to the Virginia
Supreme Court who ultimately remanded it to this
Court to make a factual determination as to
whether Mr. Atkins is mentally retarded. If he
is mentally retarded, and that is the fact issue
that you will determine, another jury has already
made the determination as to what would happen to
him. If he is mentally retarded, by law, his
sentence would now be commuted to life in prison.
If you find that he is not mentally retarded then
another jury has determined what would happen to
him; that is, that he would be executed.
7
The circuit court did direct the parties not to
inform the jury that Atkins is on “death row.” The court
also granted the Commonwealth’s motion to “death qualify”
prospective jurors.
16
On appeal, Atkins argues that the information provided
to the jury was prejudicial and distracted it from the sole
purpose of the proceeding. The Commonwealth responds that
it was imperative that the jurors be questioned about any
bias with regard to the death penalty and that, with such
questioning, the circuit court also had to inform them as
it did about Atkins’ capital murder conviction and death
sentence, the change in the law, and the consequences of
their verdict. The Commonwealth also points out that much
of the information given to the jurors was the same
information that a jury would know in a case where a
defendant, unlike Atkins, raises the question of mental
retardation before trial in accordance with Code § 19.2-
264.3:1.2(E).
Under the procedures established by the General
Assembly, the issue of mental retardation “shall be
determined by the jury as part of the sentencing
proceeding.” Code § 19.2-264.3:1.1(C) (emphasis added).
Thus, as the Commonwealth argues, a jury deciding the
question of a defendant’s mental retardation normally would
have already found the defendant guilty of capital murder.
Furthermore, when a defendant charged with capital murder
raises the issue of mental retardation, the verdict forms
provided to the jury must include not only the forms
17
specified in Code § 19.2-264.4 but also the forms set out
in Code § 19.2-264.3:1.1(D). One of the latter verdict
forms states:
“We, the jury, on the issue joined, having found the
defendant guilty of (here set out the statutory
language of the offense charged), and that the
defendant has proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that he is mentally retarded, fix his
punishment at (i) imprisonment for life or (ii)
imprisonment for life and a fine of $_______.”
Code § 19.2-264.3:1.1(D)(1). It is evident from this
verdict form that a jury would also know that a finding of
mental retardation means the defendant would not be subject
to the death penalty. Thus, to the extent the circuit
court told the jurors in this case that Atkins had been
convicted of capital murder and that he would not be
subject to the death penalty if he is mentally retarded,
the circuit court did not err.
The circuit court, however, went beyond the scope of
information that a jury would normally know when deciding
whether a defendant convicted of capital murder is mentally
retarded. The circuit court also informed the jury that
another jury had already decided that Atkins should receive
the death penalty. In other words, the jury knew that, if
it found Atkins mentally retarded, it would in effect be
nullifying another jury’s verdict to sentence Atkins to
death. In a normal context, a jury deciding the question
18
of a defendant’s mental retardation, however, would not
have already decided that the defendant should receive the
death penalty. In accordance with the procedures
established by the General Assembly, such a jury would
simultaneously consider issues regarding mental retardation
and imposition of the death penalty in the same sentencing
proceeding. Thus, the jury in this case was not entitled
to know the sentencing decision of another jury just as a
jury in a re-sentencing hearing, such as occurred in Atkins
II, is not entitled to know a prior jury’s sentencing
verdict.
Thus, we agree with Atkins. The fact that the jury
knew a prior jury had sentenced Atkins to death prejudiced
his right to a fair trial on the issue of his mental
retardation. See Lewis v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 209, 215,
608 S.E.2d 907, 910-11 (2005) (defendant was denied a fair
trial where Commonwealth repeatedly made unfounded,
prejudicial remarks). “Retrospective mental retardation
proceedings in a capital case are unlike any other jury
proceedings, and require great care in order to avoid over-
whelming prejudice to the defendant.” Lambert v. State,
126 P.3d 646, 653 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005).
In light of the circuit court’s error in giving this
information to the jury and in admitting Dr. Samenow’s
19
testimony, it is necessary to remand this case to the
circuit court for a new proceeding to determine whether
Atkins is mentally retarded. On remand, the circuit court
shall inform the new venire as follows:
Daryl Atkins has been convicted of the
offense of capital murder during the commission
of robbery. The United States Supreme Court and
the General Assembly of Virginia have determined
that a defendant convicted of capital murder, but
who is mentally retarded, is not subject to the
imposition of the death penalty. It is your duty
to determine whether Atkins is mentally retarded.8
C. Dr. Kelley
Because this case must be remanded, we will address
one additional issue that could arise during the new
proceeding in the circuit court, i.e., whether the circuit
court erred by refusing to allow Dr. Kelley to testify.
See Holley v. Pambianco, 270 Va. 180, 185, 613 S.E.2d 425,
428 (2005). Atkins sought to introduce testimony from Dr.
Kelley as an expert in the field of pediatrics and
genetics. Upon objection by the Commonwealth, the circuit
8
Since prospective jurors will be told that a mentally
retarded defendant is not subject to the imposition of the
death penalty, the circuit court, as it did previously,
must ask the venire about any bias regarding the death
penalty.
If the jury determines that Atkins is mentally
retarded, the circuit court must then direct the jury to
fix Atkins’ punishment at (i) imprisonment for life or (ii)
imprisonment for life and a fine of $________. See Code
§ 19.2-264.3:1.1(D).
20
court held that Dr. Kelley’s testimony was not relevant to
the determination of mental retardation. We agree.
During a proffer of his testimony, Dr. Kelley
explained that Atkins was born with a number of physical
abnormalities that could predispose him to have cognitive
or developmental disabilities. Because of the physical
abnormalities, Dr. Kelley opined that Atkins suffers from a
genetic syndrome. The syndrome, which Dr. Kelley called
“Atkins Syndrome,” is a “private syndrome,” meaning that he
“could not find a syndrome that had been described as a
genetic disorder with exactly the same combination of
abnormalities.”
Dr. Kelley nevertheless testified that Atkins’
physical abnormalities are significant because “more than
half of the children who have multiple physical
abnormalities will also have some developmental
abnormalities.” Dr. Kelley noted that it is necessary,
however, to probe further to ensure that “this is a genetic
abnormality as opposed to just an extreme abnormal [sic].”
Consequently, Dr. Kelley performed genetic testing on
Atkins to see if he had any chromosomal abnormalities that
would confirm a genetic syndrome. Dr. Kelley was unable to
find any. But, he stated the lack of chromosomal evidence
was not uncommon and did not rule out a genetic syndrome.
21
Finally, Dr. Kelley opined about whether Atkins
suffers from a genetic syndrome and was at risk for
developing a cognitive disability:
Q. Now, were you able to determine to a
medical certainty whether . . . Daryl Atkins
suffers from a genetic syndrome?
A. I could not identify a specific genetic
syndrome. Given the findings, I think any
geneticist would pursue further by trying to
identify – doing other genetic studies on the
family with the assumption that there is a
genetic lesion explaining the family’s – the
constellation of the abnormalities. So we
stopped at a certain point, but certainly it
would be indicated to pursue this further with
modern techniques to try to identify what gene or
group of genes is abnormal.
Q. Again, taking into account the physical
findings and the finding about the difficulty in
retaining bike riding skills –
A. Right.
Q. – do you have an opinion to a medical
certainty about whether this constellation of
information created a risk factor in Daryl
Atkins’ life for the development of a cognitive
disability?
A. Yes, indeed. That the association of
risk factors – the physical findings being a risk
factor for brain involvement and the history of a
very unusual type of learning disability.
It is evident from this testimony that Dr. Kelley
assumed that, because Atkins has certain physical
abnormalities, he suffers from a genetic syndrome causing
cognitive disabilities. But, Dr. Kelley did not confirm
22
this assumption through genetic testing or any other
accepted method of scientific proof. As Atkins admitted
during a colloquy with the circuit court, the most that Dr.
Kelley could opine within a reasonable degree of medical
probability was that Atkins’ physical abnormalities are
risk factors that could lead to developmental and cognitive
disabilities. Such an opinion was speculative and without
an adequate factual foundation. Expert testimony is
inadmissible if it is “speculative or founded on
assumptions that have an insufficient factual basis.”
Tittsworth v. Robinson, 252 Va. 151, 154, 475 S.E.2d 261,
263 (1996). Dr. Kelley also attempted to compare Atkins
with individuals having both physical abnormalities and
developmental abnormalities without foundation evidence
that actually placed Atkins in that category of
individuals. See Keesee v. Donigan, 259 Va. 157, 162, 524
S.E.2d 645, 648 (2000) (expert testimony about principles
relating to an average driver was inadmissible in the
absence of evidence placing the defendant in the category
of the average driver). Thus, we conclude that the circuit
court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to allow
Dr. Kelley to testify.
III. CONCLUSION
23
For these reasons, we will reverse the judgment of the
circuit court and remand this case for a new proceeding,
consistent with this opinion, to determine whether Atkins
is mentally retarded.
Reversed and remanded.
24