Opinion ID: 2145049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Laboratory identification of cells.

Text: Jervis also alleges error in the admission of testimony about the contents of an oral swab taken from Boyer's mouth. Two lab technicians who analyzed the swab testified in both trials about its contents. At the first trial, the first technician stated that she believed the swab contained three sperm; the other felt comfortable saying he had found one sperm head, but that [t]his specimen definitely had few sperm present. After the first trial, the technicians viewed the sample under a more powerful microscope, concluded that the substance was in fact not sperm, and testified to this effect in the second trial. The importance of the distinction was that Jervis contended he was incapable of producing sperm due to a vasectomy in 1990, a fact not known when the technicians testified the first time around. Because the technicians had a plausible explanation for the apparent discrepancy, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting their testimony and the physical evidence related to it. This does not appear to be a matter of scientific principles governed by Indiana Evidence Rule 702(b). Rather, it is a matter of the observations of persons with specialized knowledge. Jervis's challenge on this point amounts to no more than saying the technicians' second explanation was not worthy of belief. This is a jury argument and not a viable contention on appeal. Jervis's counsel vigorously cross-examined both technicians about the apparent inconsistency. The jury, therefore, was able to judge the technicians' credibility and accord their testimony whatever weight it deserved.