CBLA: The court held the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the CBLA testimony based on reports discrediting the reliability of the methodology. "If the FBI Laboratory that produced the CBLA evidence now considers such evidence to be of insufficient reliability to justify continuing to produce it, a finding by the trial court that the evidence is both scientifically reliable and relevant would be clearly erroneous, Miller v. Eldridge, 146 S.W.3d at 917, and a finding that the evidence would be helpful to the jury would be an abuse of discretion."Firearms identification: Defendant argued that the expert's testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial because the expert could not state whether the bullets came from the specific gun due to damage. The court disagreed and held that the testimony was relevent to "dispel a possible claim that any .243 caliber Wetherby Vanguard rifle would have left the same markings on the murder bullet. . . . In other words, it provided additional circumstantial evidence that the Ragland rifle fired the fatal shot."