The state called two witnesses, one of which testified that the bullets were the same kind of ammunition but that they could not conclude the bullets came from the same gun and the other testified that the bullets did come from the same gun. The defendant argued that the second expert should have been exlcuded because the testimony conflicted with the other expert's testimony and allowed the state to impeach its own witness. The court disagreed that the testimony necessarily conflicted and held that the rule against a party impeaching its own witness did not preclude experts from giving testimony that may be contrary to another witness.