Does the prosecution have any authority to determine whether the damage to the body caused by postmortem animal scavenging was caused by human caused mutilation?

Appellant contends the prosecution witnesses were unqualified to testify "whether the damage to [Ms.] Sin's decomposing body was caused by postmortem animal scavenging or by human-caused mutilation." Appellant focuses on the experts' lack of specific training in distinguishing between animal- and human-caused wounds and lack of specific training about animals. But all three experts testified to substantial prior observations of injuries inflicted by animals and by human cutting. That provided a basis for the experts to opine whether an injury appeared to be inflicted by an animal or a human. And the testimony did not "cover[] a subject commonly understood by jurors" (People v. McDowell (2012) 54 Cal.4th 395, 427), who typically would not have experience with corpses subject to animal scavenging and human cutting.