State v. Schramm, 27 Neb. App. 450, 470–71, 933 N.W.2d 600, 614 (2019), review denied (Nov. 14, 2019)
The defendant appealed based on expert testimony on strangulation. The court held that there was sufficient knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to qualify her as an expert.
Nebraska v. Cox, 2014 21 Neb. App. Unpublished
- Defendant grabbed victim by throat until she lost consciousness. Police arrived. Victim went to the hospital the next day. Victim had red marks, bruising, cuts, redness around neck.
- An ER doctor said Victim had superficial injuries but no sore throat, injury to airway, or petechiae, but her injuries could have been due to strangulation.
- Registered nurse Michalski testified as an expert. Michalski had testified in DV and strangulation for 30 years and had interviewed 10,000 victims. Michalski also had training in DV, strangulation, and critical care and was also a trainer. The court ruled Michalski to be a qualified expert. The defense attorney argued that Michalski’s testimony was subject to Daubert. Overruled by court.
- Michalski testified to general signs and symptoms of strangulation. Victims often do not report being strangled because they do not think it’s serious or they can’t remember; the evidence showed that the victim’s injuries were consistent with strangulation, and strangulation is potentially lethal
- The defendant admitted choking victim twice, but claimed it was self-defense.
- Testimony on domestic violence and strangulation were not subject to Daubert.