In a prosecution for aggravated battery, a medical examiner testified that the knife blade was consistent with the victim's wound but admitted that any number of other knives could have caused the wound. Should the judge grant a motion to strike the medical examiner's testimony?

• A. Yes, because the testimony has no probative value.
• B. No, because the testimony has some probative value and the jury may weigh it.
• C. Yes, because it is not relevant.
• D. No, because the testimony proves beyond a reasonable doubt.

Answer: (B)

The important idea is that an expert can provide testimony that helps connect the victim’s wound to a weapon, even if that testimony isn’t唯一 proof of which weapon caused the injury. Here, the medical examiner’s statement that the knife blade is consistent with the wound links the injury to a knife and gives the jury something to weigh about which instrument could have caused it. Admitting that many other knives could have caused the wound doesn’t make the testimony irrelevant; it simply affects how much weight the jury should assign to it.

A motion to strike would be appropriate only if the testimony had no probative value or was purely prejudicial or speculative. Since the examiner’s observation does have some probative value—it's a plausible link to a weapon and the jury is allowed to consider and weigh such testimony—there’s no basis to strike it. The jury may consider that the blade is consistent with the wound but also that other knives could have caused it, thus weighing credibility and overall evidence.