State v. Britt, 217 N.C. App. 309 (Dec. 6, 2011)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by reversing its ruling on the defendant’s motion in limine and allowing the State’s expert witnesses’ firearm identification testimony. The trial court initially had ruled that it would limit any testimony by the experts to statements that the bullets were “consistent,” rather than that they had been fired from the same weapon. However, after defense counsel stated in his opening statement that defense experts would testify as to their “opinion that you cannot make a match, that there [are] simply not enough points of comparison on the two bullets,” the trial court reversed its earlier ruling and permitted the State’s experts to testify to their opinions that both bullets were fired from the same gun. (1) Citing case law, the court held that forensic toolmark identification is sufficiently reliable. (2) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the State’s experts were not qualified to testify based on a lack of evidence verifying one of the expert’s training and a shared lack of credentials. The State presented evidence of both experts’ qualifications and experience. Although the State did not present verification of one of the expert’s training and neither expert was a member of a professional organization, both experts explained how firearm toolmark identification works and how they conducted their investigations such that they were better qualified than the jury to form an opinion in the instant case.