Can an expert give an opinion on the cause of death for the purposes of determining the manner of death?

The court's ruling excluding such testimony was correct. This is not a situation comparable to the opinion of a qualified physician relative to the means which might have been employed to produce a given injury, a subject on which he would have peculiar knowledge by reason of experience and study. 10 Cal.Jur. 256, p. 997; People v. Sampo, 17 Cal.App. 135, 150, 118 P. 957. Experiments which can be made without special knowledge or training and which are largely based upon speculation or conjecture are not properly the subject of expert testimony. Cf. Code Civ.Proc. 1870, subd. 9. Moreover, a ballistics expert called by defendant earlier in the case had already testified on cross-examination that conceivably a man holding a pistol might fall so that it would strike the ground butt first and remain pointed toward him; and that the fall would have a tendency to press the finger on the trigger. Thus, it is clear that plaintiffs' theory of the manner of deceased's death was a consideration submitted to the jury, and nothing material along that line could have been developed through plaintiffs' proffered expert testimony.