Defendant also challenged the testimony’s overall reliability. But since the ruling on reliability in this case was later overruled by statute (NC adopted Daubert), that part of the ruling was no longer current positive law.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
“It is not necessary that an expert be experienced with the identifcal subject matter at issue ro to be a specialist, licensed, or even engaged in a specific profession.” State v. Evangelista, 353 S.E.2d 375, 383 (1987).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Note: Defendant also had two experts (John Dillon and William Conrad). The trial court originally held in the pretrial hearing that the state’s witnesses would be limited, but in the defense’s opening statement they said their experts would testify that a match could not be made so the trail court reversed their pretrial hearing holding and allowed testimony without limitation<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n