Appellant argued that the witness was not qualified as an expert and his testimony should have been excluded as hearsay. The court agreed that the prosecution had not qualified the witness as an expert and had stated that he was testifying as a lay witness. The witness had not performed the ballistics tests and had not submitted the report showing that the bullet matched the caliber of that fired from the appellant's weapon. The court held that the testimony should have been excluded but that the error was harmless in light of other evidence.