Edwards v. State, 81 A.2d 631 (Ct. App. Md. 1951)

Defendant argued that he testimony was unreliable because the expert first testified that there were too few marks to make comparisons and a few months later testified that the bullets were fired from the same gun. The court disagreed. The expert had admitted that there were other types of guns that could have made the same class characteristics and explained how the rifling from a pistol could be removed, which the defendant later admitted to doing. The court found that there was sufficient evidence for the lower court to have concluded that the rifling was removed after the bullet had been fired.