Anabel Basinger v Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judge Annunziata and
Senior Judge Duff
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
ANABEL BASINGER
MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 2968-98-4 	CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK
JUNE 6, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Arthur B. Vieregg, Jr., Judge
Richard E. Gardiner for appellant.
Michael 	T. 	Judge, 	Assistant 	Attorney 	General
(Mark 	L. 	Earley, 	Attorney 	General, 	on 	brief),
for appellee.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
Anabel Basinger (appellant) was convicted in a bench trial
of four counts of forgery, in violation of Code § 18.2-172, and
four counts of uttering and delivering a forged check, in
violation of Code § 18.2-172. 	The sole issue raised on appeal is
whether the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony on a
handwriting comparison analysis. 	Finding no error, we affirm.
"Where the admissibility of expert testimony is challenged,
the standard of review is whether the trial court abused its
discretion." 	Currie v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 58, 64, 515
S.E.2d 335, 338 (1999). 	"Relevant scientific evidence is

admissible if the expert is qualified to give testimony and the
science upon which he testifies is reliable. 	There also must be a
connection between the evidence and the factual dispute in the
case." 	Farley v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 495, 498-99, 458
S.E.2d 310, 312 (1995) (citations omitted).
In the instant case, Luther M. Senter, a forensic document
examiner with the Division of Forensic Science, testified as an
expert for the Commonwealth. 	Senter had been employed by the
Division of Forensic Science for four years and prior to that had
worked for over thirty years for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. 	As a document examiner, Senter examines
handwriting and compares it to a known standard. 	He has examined
thousands of documents and has been qualified as an expert witness
in state, federal and military courts in approximately 160 cases.
Senter compared the handwriting exemplars from appellant with
the writing on the four checks in question. 	He considered
numerous handwriting characteristics, including "the formation of
letters, . . . height relationship of letters, pen lifts, pen
pressure, position of the writing relative to the base line
writing, [and] the overall quality of penmanship represented by
the questioned writing when compared with the known standards."
Senter uses a hand held magnifying glass when performing analysis.
He testified that this was an accepted method of analysis in his
field.
- 2 -

The trial court found that Senter was qualified to testify as
an expert in handwriting comparisons, and appellant does not
challenge this finding on appeal. 	Rather, appellant argues that
the trial court erred in failing to make a threshold finding that
the expert's method of handwriting comparison was scientifically
reliable. 	This argument lacks merits.
Contrary to appellant's contention, the trial court made a
finding as to the reliability of handwriting comparison evidence.
Overruling appellant's objection, the trial judge specifically
found that "many courts have recognized this expertise." 	We have
previously held that "side-by-side comparison of genuine samples
and alleged samples, by a party unfamiliar with the alleged
writer's handwriting, is the sole province of the expert witness."
Wileman v. Commonwealth, 24 Va. App. 642, 647, 484 S.E.2d 621, 624
(1997). 	This has been the law in the Commonwealth for over one
hundred years. 	See Hanriot v. Sherwood, 7 Hans. (82 Va.) 1, 10
(1884); see also Charles E. Friend, The Law of Evidence in
Virginia § 15-11 (5th ed. 1999) ("Today, however, it is firmly
established that proof by comparison is proper. 	It is, in fact,
error to refuse to allow an expert witness to state an opinion
based on such a comparison."). 	Accordingly, appellant's
convictions are affirmed.
Affirmed.
- 3 -