Slaughter v. State

¶ 1 Appellant Jimmie Ray Slaughter was tried by a jury in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-92-82, and convicted of two counts of Murder in the First Degree (21 O.S.1991, § 701.7(A)).1 Trial commenced on May 16,1994 and continued until October 7,1994, when the jury returned its verdict on punishment.2 The prosecution sought the death penalty, alleging in each count that (1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (21 O.S.1991, § 701.12(4)); (2) there existed a probability the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society (21 O.S.1991, § 701.12(7)); and (3) the defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person (21 O.S.1991, § 701.12(2)). Before the jury began second-stage deliberations, the prosecution dismissed the allegation that the murder charged in Count I was especially heinous, atrocious. As to Count 1, the jury found only that Appellant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person; it did not find that Appellant would be a continuing threat to society. As to Count 2, the jury found that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel and that Appellant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person; the jury did not find continuing threat. The trial court followed the jury’s recommendations and sentenced Appellant to death on each count. We affirm.3

112 At “right around noon” on July 2, 1991, Ginger Neal noticed that her pitbull dog, Ozie, was barking and acting strangely in the back yard. Ozie was somewhat skittish, more so around adults than with children. The dog was in such a hurry to get into the house that he practically ran over a child on his way to his place of refuge in the house. Ms. Neal was sufficiently concerned to glance out in the back yard to see if an intruder were present; she saw nothing. A few minutes later, she heard a noise, as if a ear were backfiring or a firecracker had exploded. As Independence Day was only two days away, she thought nothing of the noise. Rhonda Moss, who lived in the same house as Ms. Neal, also heard the noise. At least one other neighbor also heard the backfiring noise. Neither Ms. Moss nor Ms. Neal *845thought much about it until the bodies of Melody Wuertz and her 11-month-old daughter, Jessica, were found early that same evening in the house next door.

¶ 3 Melody was found on the floor in her bedroom. She had been shot once in the cervical spine and once in the head. In addition, she had been stabbed in the chest and in her genitalia; and there were carvings on her abdomen and breasts which authorities interpreted as symbols of some kind. A comb filled with Negroid hairs, some underwear containing Negroid head hairs, some unused condoms and some gloves were found near Melody’s body. No seminal fluid was found in or on Melody. In the bathroom, Melody’s curling iron was still plugged in. Baby Jessica was found in the hallway; just days shy of her first birthday, she had been shot twice in the head. The medical examiners who examined the bodies estimated time of death to be approximately between 9:30 a.m. and 12:15 p.m. on July 2.

¶4 The prosecution’s theory was that Melody was surprised while in the bathroom as she was preparing for work (the evening shift at the Oklahoma City Veterans Administration Hospital); was then paralyzed (but not rendered unconscious) by the shot to the cervical spine; was forced to lie paralyzed and conscious as her child was killed; then was dragged to the bedroom, where she was killed by the shot to her head. The killer then planted the evidence in an attempt to throw investigators off the trail.

¶ 5 Appellant (a nurse at the VA Hospital) was a suspect from the very beginning. He and Melody had had a sexual relationship, the result of which Melody became pregnant. Appellant signed an affidavit acknowledging paternity on July 17, 1990, ten days after Jessica was born. Despite this acknowledgment, Appellant’s support of the child was meager, a fact Melody mentioned more than once. Melody’s insistence on getting Appellant to provide monetary support for her child irritated him. He once remarked to a co-worker at the hospital that Melody was getting “pushy,” and if she continued to act that way, he would have to kill her. To another, he said Melody was causing him problems at work, and one day he would have to kill both Melody and Jessica. Appellant was concerned a paternity action by Melody could jeopardize his status as a reserve officer in the Army; additionally, Appellant was married, and his wife did not know about the affairs with Melody and other women. In the fall of 1990, Appellant was called to active duty during the Desert Storm military operation, and was stationed at Ft. Riley, Kansas. He remained on active duty there until mid-July, 1991. During this period, what scant payments Appellant had made to Melody stopped. This forced Melody to seek child support through the Department of Human Services, an action which enraged Appellant. Before her death, Melody expressed to several people her fear that Appellant would take action against her because she had initiated child support proceedings against him.

¶ 6 Appellant presented an alibi defense. He presented evidence purporting to show he was with his family shopping in Topeka, Kansas, at the time of the murders. Other facts will be presented as they become relevant.

I.

PRE-TRIAL ISSUES

A.

¶ 7 In his second proposition of error, Appellant claims the trial court committed reversible error by not allowing defense counsel to question prospective jurors about their attitudes toward the death penalty in relation to other sentences. Appellant acknowledges this Court has refused to allow evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the death penalty during the sentencing stage of a capital case. See Smallwood v. State, 907 P.2d 217, 233 (Okl.Cr.1995), cert. denied,U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 431, 136 L.Ed.2d 330 (1996). However, he claims the issue here is not that evidence be allowed, but that he should be able to question jurors about their perspectives of the death penalty in terms of cost factors, i.e., that jurors’ concerns about the cost of incarceration for life would prompt them to be inclined to support a decision to sentence Appellant to death.

*846¶8 Appellant is correct in his assertion that he presented a motion in limine concerning the issue. He is also correct that the trial court denied the motion. Beyond that, the record does not support his contentions. Indeed, we have found at least two instances where defense counsel asked the question during voir dire; and on neither occasion was an objection raised by prosecutors. In short, Appellant was allowed to ask his questions.4 This renders Appellant’s complaint moot.

B.

¶ 9 In his third proposition of error, Appellant alleges the trial court denied him his right to a public trial when portions of voir dire were closed to the public. Again, the record shows the proposition is without merit. After conducting voir dire with all jurors present, the court agreed to individual questioning of the jurors on the issues of capital punishment, the occult and pretrial publicity. Rather than conduct the individual voir dire in the judge’s small chambers, the decision was made to have it in the courtroom but to exclude spectators. At that point, the court noticed Melody’s parents were in the courtroom, and questioned whether they should be allowed to remain. The prosecutor, Mr. Wintory, expressed his belief the purpose of individual voir dire was to prevent accidental contamination of other jurors, and he had no objection if the parents were allowed to remain. At that point, defense counsel said “I agree with Mr. Wintory, it needs to be public.” However, during individual voir dire, the court ordered the parents to leave the courtroom. Defense counsel objected to the fact the prosecutor conferred with the parents privately over the issue, claimed this gave them special status, and moved for a mistrial. After further discussion, it was decided to exclude everyone except the individual jurors. The following exchange then occurred:

Mr. Wintory: Finally, your honor, let me say this. I renew my request that the defense — and this Court question Mr. Slaughter specifically on his waiver of his right to have a public and open courtroom, and that he has since [sic] to the procedure that has been outlined.

Court:. You mean as far as the interrogation of members of the panel in camera on these three questions?

Mr. Wintory: Yes, Your Honor.

Court: Is that is that [sic] agreeable, Mr. Coyle?

Mr. Coyle [defense counsel]: Yes, sir.

Mr. Williams: I would advise the Court, as an officer of your court, I have conferred with our client and advised him of the matter that Mr. Wintory addresses, and was — would tell you at this time, that Mr. Slaughter has been apprised of the fact of the nature and what this in camera proceeding is. The purpose of it is to safeguard tainting any of the other prospective jurors with any remarks from the juror who is under interrogation. That it would be done in private, that it is an in camera proceeding, albeit in your courtroom, and I have explained that to him and he is perfectly willing for us to proceed in that fashion. Is that correct, Mr. Slaughter?

Mr. Slaughter: That is correct.

Court: Is that good enough?

Mr. Wintory: Word of counsel is good enough for me.

Court: That is fine. And for the Court too.

*847(5-18-94 Tr. 140-41). Without deciding whether proceedings in a locked courtroom can be the equivalent of an in camera hearing, we find this to be a sufficient waiver of the right to have the proceedings conducted in open court. This proposition is without merit.

C.

¶ 10 In his fourth proposition, Appellant claims the prosecution failed to provide defense counsel with important exculpatory evidence which would have shown the murders could have occurred earlier than theorized by the prosecution. In support of this contention, Appellant filed a motion to supplement the record pursuant to Rule 3.11, 22 O.S.Supp.1996, Ch.18, App., Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, on June 13,1996. That motion was denied by this Court on July 3, 1996, because it did not meet the requirements of Rule 3.11. Appellant has provided no other evidence to support this allegation. Consequently, we find it to be without merit. See Rules 3.5(A)(5) & (C)(1), 22 O.S.Supp.1996, Ch.18, App., Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.5

D.

¶ 11 In his fourteenth proposition of error, Appellant argues the court erred in not quashing the bill of particulars. He bases this on Hunter v. State, 829 P.2d 64 (Okl.Cr. 1992), where this Court held that a bill of particulars must be filed before or at the time of district court arraignment.

¶ 12 Language in Hunter itself renders this proposition without merit. There, after noting when the bill of particulars must be filed, we added that the trial court for good cause shown can extend that time. This ability is at the trial court’s discretion. Id. at 65.

¶ 13 The difference between this ease and Hunter is vast. In Hunter, the prosecution did not file the bill of particulars until seven days before trial, a time frame which this Court deemed “clearly unreasonable.” Id. In contrast, Appellant was arraigned on February 5, 1993. At a hearing on August 26, 1993, the prosecution announced it had not filed a bill of particulars, but added “we would advise the Court and counsel, we’ve spoken before, that we do intend to seek the death penalty in this matter.” (8-26-93 Tr. 3) (emphasis added). The bill of particulars was filed on November 15,1993. Jury selection for trial began on May 16,1994. Therefore, Appellant had six months’ official notice that the prosecution would seek the death penalty.

¶ 14 This is unquestionably a voluminous record. However, from the above dates, it seems evident Appellant knew well in advance of trial that the prosecution intended to seek the death penalty in his case, and would file a bill of particulars. Under the circumstances of this case, we find six months before trial constitutes a “reasonable time,” Marquez v. State, 890 P.2d 980, 982 (Okl.Cr.1995), to file a bill of particulars and give Appellant notice of what the State would use to seek the death penalty. Under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse his discretion in allowing such a filing. See also Carpenter v. State, 929 P.2d 988, 994-95 (Okl.Cr.1996) (bill of particulars filed three months after arraignment and one month before trial reasonable); McCracken v. State, 887 P.2d 323, 331 (Okl.Cr.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 859, 116 S.Ct. 166, 133 L.Ed.2d 108 (1995) (bill of particulars and amended bill of particulars filed six and four months before trial deemed reasonable). This proposition is without merit.

II.

FIRST-STAGE TRIAL ISSUES

A.

¶ 15 In his sixth proposition of error, Appellant complains he was denied his right to *848a fair trial because of improper admission of evidence dealing with the occult and satanism. He claims the evidence was not relevant to whether he killed Melody and Jessica Wuertz; but even if it were, its prejudicial value exceeded any probative value it might have had.

¶ 16 Appellant cites Sellers v. State, 809 P.2d 676 (Okl.Cr.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 912, 112 S.Ct. 310, 116 L.Ed.2d 252 (1991) in support of his contention evidence of the occult is not relevant. We disagree with Appellant’s characterization of the case. This Court did not say evidence of the occult would always be irrelevant; we deemed the evidence irrelevant in that particular case. There, Appellant sought to introduce testimony that an Oklahoma City girl who had no connection to his case had become involved in satanism, and the girl had also received a note signed by someone else (also not involved in the case) who was believed to be involved in satanism. The note informed the girl that she would kill her parents and that she would be kidnapped. The girl was placed in a mental institution to undergo therapy in connection with these occult influences. Appellant claimed it was error to exclude this evidence, as it would have been relevant to show the presence and influence of satanism in Oklahoma City. Id. at 683. We disagreed. Whéther satanism or other occult influences were present, or even widespread, in Oklahoma City, is not relevant absent some evidence showing more than a tenuous connection between the defendant and the issue. In the Sellers case, there was no admissible evidence connecting that defendant with the occult. Id. Consequently, the issue was not properly a part of that ease.

¶ 17 Here, the evidence is relevant. Unlike Sellers, where there was no admissible evidence to indicate the murders themselves were ritualistic slayings, here there were carvings on the body of Melody Wuertz which pointed to the possibility of an occult-related slaying. Several items at the scene were planted by Appellant to lead authorities away from himself as a suspect.

¶ 18 It is true that one could make an argument it would be inconsistent to plant evidence to mislead authorities while at the same time leaving evidence which could point to Appellant. Whether the evidence pointed to Appellant or away from him is not important. In either case, the evidence is relevant, as it would “hav[e] any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action” — here, who murdered Melody and Jessica Wuertz— “more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” 12 O.S. 1991, § 2401. That Appellant had knowledge of the occult would be relevant to show that he could have carved such symbols into the flesh of Melody Wuertz. The State was required to present evidence that created a mosaic which ultimately would identify Appellant as the perpetrator of these offenses. Appellant’s knowledge and affinity toward the occult was one of many pieces of the puzzle which established the identity of a complex individual. See Commonwealth v. Drew, 397 Mass. 65, 489 N.E.2d 1233, 1242-43 (1986) (evidence of satanism could help explain to the jury acts of violence which would otherwise appear to be inexplicable); Commonwealth v. Costal, 351 Pa.Super. 200, 505 A.2d 337, 338 (1986) (Court deems defendant’s beliefs “highly probative regarding the manner of the slayings”; therefore evidence of satanism not improper).

¶ 19 Appellant also claims that the court erred in allowing testimony from FBI Agent Kenneth Lanning on the occult. He contends Lanning was not an “expert” in the field, and therefore was not qualified to testify as one. As a preliminary matter, this Court has long held that the qualification of a person to testify as an expert is a matter which rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, and that decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319, 338 n. 85 (Okl.Cr.1995); Clayton v. State, 840 P.2d 18, 28 (Okl.Cr.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1008, 113 S.Ct. 1655, 123 L.Ed.2d 275 (1993). This Court has defined “abuse of discretion” as “clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented in support of and against the application.” R.J.D. v. State, 799 P.2d 1122, 1125 (Okl.Cr. *8491990) (quoting Stevens v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 216, 225, 232 P.2d 949, 959 (1951)). We shall therefore examine the evidence which led the trial court to qualify Lanning as an expert.

¶ 20 Lanning testified he was a supervisory special agent in the Behavioral Sciences and Services Unit at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. His job consisted of applying his knowledge of the behavioral sciences to the criminal justice system; specifically in the areas of training, research and case consultation.

¶21 Appellant’s contention at trial was that, as Banning’s primary expertise was focused on the sexual victimization of children and since there was no such allegation present in this trial, Lanning was outside his area of expertise. To take such a restricted view is to ignore past caselaw from this Court dealing with expert witnesses. Section 2702 of the Evidence Code requires that the expert who testifies must be qualified “by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.” Although the Evidence Code is not cited, this idea is well described in Perry v. State, 561 P.2d 112 (Okl.Cr.1977). There, the issue was whether a defendant was driving while under the influence of an intoxicating beverage. The prosecution’s witness was qualified under OMahoma statutes, which required a special permit from the Board of Chemical Tests for Alcohol Influence before testing could be conducted for that purpose. The defendant’s expert did not possess the permit, and the trial court refused to let the defense witness testify based on that lack of a permit. This Court reversed, noting that while possession of such a permit would be good evidence of a witness’ qualifications, its absence is no real indication that the witness is not qualified to perform the test.

A physician, chemist, medical technologist, biologist, biochemist, toxicologist or a person with similar training or experience is ordinarily qualified as an expert in conducting scientific tests to determine the alcoholic content of blood and in interpreting the results of such tests. See, III Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 591.- Under the trial court’s application of the statute, the chemist for the DuPont Company who developed and perfected the latest method approved by the Board, would not be permitted to testify as an expert. Rather, the test he had run would not be considered valid evidence because he did not possess the required permit.

Id. at 114. The gist of the opinion is clear. As one evidence authority has stated: “Labels can be misleading and might otherwise deprive a party of expertise which is needed to develop the issues in the case.” 2 L. Whinery, Oklahoma Evidence: Commentary on the Law of Evidence at 561. See also Jenkins v. United States, 807 F.2d 637, 643-44 (D.C.Cir.1962) (psychologist’s ability to render an opinion on a medical issue in the case depended on the nature and extent of his knowledge, not on his title). Here is a good example. Although Lanning’s acknowledged field of expertise lay in the field of sexual victimization of children, he also testified that, in the course of that study, he had developed a specialized knowledge and expertise in the field of occult systems as they manifested themselves in the commission of crimes which he was studying. As he investigated the field of the occult, he quicMy discovered most allegations of child abuse in this area were done in broader context of occult behavior. Consequently, he began thoroughly familiarizing himself in the area of the occult to better and more thoroughly complete his job in his specialized area. He did this by attending seminars and doing extensive reading on the subject as well as speaking with experts in the field for information which could be applied in his investigative process. See Yates v. Garrett, 19 Okl. 449, 92 P. 142, 143 (1907) (although they may not be experts in the sense that they had extensive and exhaustive knowledge of the subject, witnesses who had acquired some knowledge of the subject based on their experiences were properly qualified to testify). In light of this background, we do not find the trial court’s ruling to be clearly erroneous.

¶ 22 Appellant also complains of other instances in which the trial court admitted evidence of the occult. The rationale for admitting the testimony of Lanning applies here as well: the evidence shows both that Appellant had the knowledge to leave certain *850kinds of evidence at the scene which could either mislead investigators or give them clues as to the killer’s identity. The evidence could also tend to show Appellant’s belief system and how that belief system could allow him to commit the murders.

¶23 Nor do we find the evidence substantially more prejudicial than probative. Although it is most likely true that the evidence did not “endear[ ] Appellant to the average juror,” Costal, 505 A.2d at 338, evidence was also introduced which tended to show Appellant was not involved in the occult, and that he was just a braggart trying to impress those around him. Additionally, the trial court instructed the jury that it was free to give the expert evidence dealing with the occult whatever weight and credit it deemed proper. Id. at 338-39.

¶24 For all these reasons, this proposition is without merit.

B.

¶ 25 In his seventh proposition of error, Appellant complains that evidence of “bad acts” which he had allegedly committed deprived him of a fair trial. He asserted the evidence, much of it from acts or statements committed years earlier, portrayed him as a “murderous devil worshiper.” Specifically, the evidence showed that he enjoyed killing in Vietnam; that he did not know what the “big deal” was about a baby being killed, when thousands died in Vietnam; that while watching television with a co-worker, Appellant said of a character on television that he could “mutilate a sleazeball like that and he wouldn’t be recognized”; that he referred to an uncooperative patient as “the type of sleazeball I could mutilate.” None of these errors was preserved for appeal, as defense counsel either failed to object, or objected on different grounds than those asserted on appeal.6 Consequently, we review only for plain, reversible error. Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690, 693 (Okl.Cr.1994). When no objection was lodged at trial, this Court shall consider the error as harmless “unless it ha[s] a ‘substantial influence’ on the outcome, or leaves the reviewing court in ‘grave doubt’ as to whether it had such an effect.” Id. at 702.

¶26 The comments of which Appellant now complains do not rise to that standard— if indeed they were error at all. Melody’s body was mutilated by the carvings in her flesh; therefore, the comments concerning mutilations are relevant, and their probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 12 O.S.1991, § 2403. The same is true concerning his statements that he enjoyed killing in Vietnam, and failing to see what the “big deal” was concerning a baby’s death: these statements show a state of mind, and illustrate how a person might be capable of murdering a small child.

¶ 27 Another witness testified that Appellant once told him he had been in a special forces unit that would go into villages in Vietnam, seek out individuals identified as Vietcong sympathizers, and kill them. Appellant said when he cut the throats of his victims, it gave him an “erection.” Again, no objection was lodged. Again, we find no plain, reversible error. This, too is relevant, as a knife was used in an unusual way on Melody.

¶ 28 Appellant next contends a witness improperly testified that Appellant supposedly killed some other people. This is incorrect. The witness told the jury Appellant “told me about two instances of criminal background which — ” At that point, defense counsel objected. As a result, the jury heard nothing about the fact Appellant may have killed others, as this was discussed only in the bench conference. Additionally, the jury was admonished to disregard what little testimony on the subject which it heard. This cured the error. Charm v. State, 924 P.2d 754, 770 (Okl.Cr.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. *851-, 117 S.Ct. 1560, 187 L.Ed.2d 707 (1997); Ezell v. State, 909 P.2d 68, 70 n. 1 (Okl.Cr. 1995); Richie v. State, 908 P.2d 268, 278 (Okl.Cr.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 111, 136 L.Ed.2d 64 (1996).

¶ 29 Appellant also contends it was error to allow testimony about his bias towards African Americans. Defense counsel did not object to this testimony, so it will be reviewed for plain, reversible error. Simpson, 876 P.2d at 693. We find no such error. The testimony was relevant to show why Appellant would have planted evidence at the scene indicating an African American committed the murders, and why Appellant was the first person to mention to authorities during his interview that it was possible an African American had Mlled the victims. Additionally, despite the testimony that Appellant did not like African Americans, the same witness testified that Appellant worked with an African American while at Fort Riley, and described her as “a nice girl, and he liked her.” This testimony tends to discount the assertion that Appellant bore a universal hostility towards all African Americans.

¶ 30 Accordingly, this proposition is without merit.

C.

¶31 In his eighth proposition of error, Appellant argues that excited utterance testimony of Cecilia Johnson should not have been admitted into evidence. To understand this proposition, it is necessary to recount more facts produced at trial.

¶32 Cecilia Johnson was a nurse who worked with Appellant at the VA Hospital in OMahoma City. At the same time Appellant was having sexual relations with Melody, Johnson was undergoing a divorce, and her self-esteem was very low. After Melody became pregnant, Appellant started having sexual relations with Johnson. The prosecution’s theory — which was borne out by evidence at trial — was that Appellant had the ability to recognize women who were vulnerable and to exploit that vulnerability to his own ends. When it came to Johnson, Appellant’s mastery was complete. She openly expressed to co-workers her hostility to Melody when Melody sought money from Appellant to support her child. The prosecution produced evidence showing that Johnson began helping Appellant prepare for the murders. She did this by keeping him abreast of what Melody did and said while he was stationed at Ft. Riley, by obtaining Negroid hairs and clothing from a patient at the hospital and mailing those items to Appellant so he could plant them at the murder scene.

¶33 As the investigation into the murders progressed, Johnson and prosecutors reached an agreement. One of the terms of this agreement was that Johnson would be immune from prosecution for assisting Appellant if she agreed to cooperate with authorities in their investigation. In addition to providing authorities with information concerning her participation, Johnson also recorded a telephone conversation she had with Appellant, and wore a recording device to a meeting she had with him. After an earlier failed attempt, Johnson committed suicide in February 1992.

¶34 On January 11, 1992 (a Saturday), Johnson received a call at work from a friend, who told her there was an article on the Slaughter ease in the early edition of the Sunday newspaper, and Johnson’s name was in it. When Johnson obtained a copy of the newspaper and read the article, she became very agitated, waving her arms around and saying “[h]ow could they do, how could this happen.” Johnson then telephoned someone and, while on the telephone, yelled: “[h]ow could this happen, you were supposed to protect me.” She repeated the remarks to the witness when she ended the telephone conversation, adding that “[t]hey used my words, they didn’t have to be so explicit, they could have been more vague. How could they have let this happen.” She then said: “I’m a goner, he’s going to kill me. I’m going to get killed.” When the witness pointed out that Appellant was in jail, Johnson looked at her as if she were completely ignorant, and told her Appellant knew people who could have her killed, and he would have an alibi since he was in jail. Johnson then related how she had gone into a black patient’s room, got hair off a brush, got a pair of underwear the patient had left behind, and *852sent the items to Appellant so he could plant them at the scene to mislead authorities. At trial, defense counsel did not disagree that the first statements could be classified as excited utterances and therefore admissible even though hearsay. 12 O.S.1991, § 2803(2). He contended, however, that the latter statements were not admissible, as Johnson was no longer under the stress of excitement caused by seeing the newspaper article and was merely trying to assign blame for the murders on Appellant.

¶35 The excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay is admissible in court and does not run afoul of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment because such statements are made in contexts that provide “substantial guarantees of their trustworthiness.” White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355, 112 S.Ct. 736, 742, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992). As the Supreme Court has pointed out, this “firmly rooted” exception is nearly two centuries old. It is recognized in four-fifths of the states as well as the federal rules of evidence. Id. at 355 n. 8, 112 S.Ct. at 742 n. 8. However, to qualify under this exception, certain requirements must be met.

¶36 This Court has observed there are three foundational requirements which must be satisfied before hearsay evidence can be admitted into evidence under the excited utterance exception. There (1) must be a startling event or condition; (2) there must be a statement relating to that startling event or condition; and (3) that statement must be made while the declarant is under the stress of excitement caused by the startling event or condition. Marquez, 890 P.2d at 983 (citing McCalip v. State, 778 P.2d 488, 490 (Okl.Cr.1989)). In determining whether statements fall under this exception, we examine both the timing of the statement and its spontaneity. As this is determined by the facts of each case, we conduct the analysis on a case-by-case basis. Id.

¶ 37 There appears to be no argument that a startling event existed. Reading a newspaper article in which she was named as cooperating with authorities — a fact Johnson evidently did not want Appellant to know — clearly upset her. Nor is there any dispute that a statement was made which relates to the startling event. The only issue is whether the statements were made while Johnson was under the stress of excitement caused by the condition.

¶ 38 The witness testified that Johnson became agitated while reading the article and appeared to be in a state of excitement during the entire conversation. She either was agitated, shaky or irritable the entire time. She spoke with a trembling voice. She exhibited signs of either anger, fright or terror the entire time she made the statements at issue. It appears Johnson made a few statements before she made a telephone call; uttered other statements during the course of a telephone call of undetermined length; then made the remainder of the statements immediately after completing the telephone call. We do not believe an extended period of time elapsed between the time Johnson first viewed the article and completed the statements at issue. Further, it appears that all of Johnson’s statements at issue were made while she was under the stress of excitement caused by the event. As all conditions were met to admit the statement, the court did not err in allowing the complained-of testimony. This proposition is without merit.

D.

¶ 39 Appellant next complains the court erred in allowing what he characterizes as an opinion by the medical examiner that Johnson was being truthful. Again, further examination of the facts is necessary.

¶40 As noted above, Johnson expressed hostility towards Melody because she perceived Melody was creating problems for Appellant. In fact, Johnson once told a coworker that she would kill someone for Appellant. Taken in context, the co-worker suspected the “someone” mentioned was Melody. One defense theory at trial was that it was Johnson, not Appellant, who committed the murders.

¶ 41 Despite this hostility towards Melody, Johnson adored Jessica because she was Appellant’s child. She was always anxious to obtain pictures of the baby, and at one point *853even expressed her desire to have Jessica as her very own.

¶42 When Johnson learned that both Melody and Jessica had been murdered, she had a noteworthy reaction. One witness said she immediately turned pale and white, as if the blood had drained out of her face. Another witness testified she appeared “shocked” and grabbed a nearby pole, as if she were fainting. To relate the significance of this reaction, the prosecution called Dr. Fred Jordan, the Oklahoma Medical Examiner, to testify about the autonomic nervous system. The prosecution’s theory was that Johnson’s response could not be contrived, and was therefore genuine; the implication was that Johnson either did not know the deaths were pending, or did not know that Jessica was also going to die. In either case, it would tend to refute the defense theory she had committed the murders. At trial, defense counsel objected on the basis that the medical examiner was not qualified to give an expert opinion on autonomic responses. The trial court overruled the objections, admitting the testimony. Appellant claims that was error.

¶43 As we noted above, the trial court has wide latitude in deciding whether to allow a person to testify as an expert and that decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Clayton, 840 P.2d at 28. The mere fact that Dr. Jordan was the state medical examiner does not detract from the fact he also completed medical school, was a medical doctor and was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma. His job required him to be familiar with every aspect of anatomy, so he could differentiate between what was normal and what was not. In addition, Dr. Jordan also testified that before coming to court, he reviewed literature in the field of autonomic responses. In light of his other qualifications, we hold the doctor was qualified as an expert, not only by education and knowledge, but also by educating himself further in the particular subject at issue. See Perry, 561 P.2d at 114.

¶ 44 Further, we disagree with Appellant’s characterization of Dr. Jordan’s testimony as vouching for Johnson’s truthfulness. The doctor simply testified that a human face cannot be made pale voluntarily; that such a condition is generally due to a fall in blood pressure, which is an involuntary response. He further testified he knew of no way an individual on his own for whatever reason could deliberately instantaneously make the face pale. He also testified that there were some drugs which could affect the autonomic nervous system, that he did not review Johnson’s medical history, and that he did not know if she were taking any such drugs. None of this expresses an opinion that Johnson’s response to the news of the deaths was genuine and not contrived; it merely gave reasons how such responses could occur, and how they could not occur. Cf. Davenport v. State, 806 P.2d 655, 660 (Okl.Cr.1991) (expert testimony on child accommodation syndrome is admissible evidence if, among other requirements, the expert testifies about general acceptance of syndrome in the scientific community and the expert’s knowledge of syndrome; and if the expert testifies about the background and nature of syndrome, rather than stating an opinion as to whether or not a particular child suffered from the syndrome).

¶ 45 Despite the assertions of Appellant, the evidence was relevant. Defense counsel tried to paint Johnson as the murderer. Without giving an opinion, the doctor testified as to the control a person could exert over the autonomic nervous system, and factors which could affect that system. Had Johnson been the murderer, or known that Jessica was going to be killed, she would not have been surprised. The jury could use the information provided by Dr. Jordan to assist them in determining whether Johnson feigned surprise when learning of the deaths. From this, the jury could draw its own conclusions concerning whether Johnson committed the murders or knew they were going to happen.

¶46 Appellant’s ninth proposition of error is without merit.

E.

¶47 In his tenth proposition of error, Appellant contends the court erred in allow*854ing the state to present irrelevant evidence concerning debts of Nicki Bonner. As noted above, Bonner was Appellant’s wife at the time of the murders. She testified that Appellant was with them in the Ft. Riley-Topeka area the entire day when Melody and Jessica were