People of the State of Michigan v. Mark Steven Unger
749 N.W.2d 272 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's gatekeeping role under MRE 702 is to ensure an expert's opinion is rationally derived from a sound scientific foundation, not to resolve genuine scientific disputes or exclude testimony merely because other experts disagree. A conviction based on conflicting expert testimony and sufficient circumstantial evidence will be upheld if a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
Facts:
- Mark Unger and his wife, Florence Unger, were in the process of a contentious divorce initiated by Florence in August 2003.
- On October 24, 2003, the couple and their two children traveled to a rented cottage at the Watervale resort on Lower Herring Lake for the weekend.
- That evening, Mark and Florence Unger were alone on the rooftop deck of a boathouse near their cottage.
- Mark Unger claimed he left Florence on the deck to put their children to bed, and when he returned, she was gone.
- The following morning, after Unger reported his wife missing to neighbors Linn and Maggie Duncan, the Duncans found Florence's body in the shallow water near the boathouse.
- From a location where the body was not visible, Linn Duncan informed Unger that Florence was 'in the water,' at which point Unger ran directly to the body.
- Police discovered a large bloodstain on the concrete pavement below the deck, a damaged and outwardly bowed deck railing, and the victim's belongings.
- A search of Unger's already-packed vehicle revealed a pair of his shoes with a white paint smear that was chemically consistent with the paint on the damaged boathouse railing.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Unger was charged with first-degree premeditated murder.
- At a preliminary examination in district court, the testimony of the prosecution's expert, Dr. Dragovic, was excluded under MRE 702.
- Consequently, the district court found insufficient evidence of premeditation and bound Unger over for trial on the lesser charge of second-degree murder.
- In the circuit court, which acted as the trial court, the prosecution moved to admit Dr. Dragovic's testimony.
- The circuit court conducted a new evidentiary hearing, found Dr. Dragovic's proposed testimony admissible, and granted the prosecution's motion.
- The circuit court then permitted the prosecution to amend the information to reinstate the charge of first-degree premeditated murder.
- A jury convicted Unger of first-degree premeditated murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison.
- Unger appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by admitting an expert pathologist's testimony regarding the cause and manner of death when that expert's opinion conflicts with other experts and is based on a review of case materials rather than a personal autopsy?
Opinions:
Majority - Jansen, J.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the expert's testimony. The court correctly performed its gatekeeping role under MRE 702 and Daubert, which requires filtering out unreliable expert evidence, not resolving genuine scientific disputes or admitting only unassailable testimony. The proper inquiry is into whether the expert's opinion is rationally derived from a sound foundation and based on the methods of science rather than subjective belief. Dr. Dragovic, a qualified forensic pathologist, based his conclusions on standard scientific methods, including a review of the autopsy protocol, photographs, and anatomical specimens. The fact that other experts disagreed with his conclusions or that he did not personally perform the autopsy goes to the weight and credibility of his testimony, which are matters for the jury to decide, not to its admissibility.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinct roles of the judge and jury in cases involving expert testimony. It solidifies the trial court's 'gatekeeper' function as one focused on the reliability of an expert's methodology, not the correctness of their conclusion. The ruling clarifies that conflicting expert opinions do not render one opinion inadmissible; rather, it creates a question of fact and credibility for the jury to resolve. This precedent is significant for future criminal cases, especially those built on circumstantial evidence, as it affirms that a conviction can stand on a foundation of competing scientific theories as long as each is properly admitted and a rational jury could find for the prosecution.
Unlock the full brief for People of the State of Michigan v. Mark Steven Unger