State v. Woodworth, 941 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1997)

Mark claims the trial court erred in allowing the State's firearms experts to testify regarding the ballistics tests conducted on the bullets and Claude Woodworth's gun and on the general manufacture of firearms. He argues that, because the witnesses did not personally conduct any tests or experiments on the manufacturing process or specifically observe the manufacture of Claude Woodworth's pistol, their opinions were speculative and based on hearsay. The Court found that The three witnesses were established as qualified firearms experts without challenge from defendant. With regard to the testimony he now attacks, all three experts had extensively studied the field of firearms and were familiar with books and studies on the general manufacture of firearms. Experts Garrison and Clayton testified that they had personally observed the manufacturing process at various arms factories over the course of their careers. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing these arms experts to offer their opinions on the manufacturing process and the likelihood that Claude Woodworth's pistol fired the recovered bullets.