Opinion ID: 1303270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Qualification of Expert

Text: Ford contends that John Coleman should not have been allowed to give opinion testimony concerning the results of tests he conducted because he was not qualified as an expert witness. We disagree. John Coleman, the forensic laboratory technician for Lifecodes, who conducted the tests in this case, testified regarding the analysis used and the results obtained. When he began making comparisons from his test results, defense counsel objected first on grounds relating to the tests' scientific validity and, second, on the grounds that Coleman had not been qualified as an expert. The Solicitor asked that Coleman be qualified as an expert in forensic laboratory testing. Defense counsel requested a bench conference which was held out of the hearing of the jury. The Solicitor resumed the direct examination. On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Coleman about his qualifications. Defense counsel never objected after Coleman was offered as an expert. The record indicates that Coleman was qualified as an expert in forensic laboratory testing without objection and, therefore, was properly allowed to testify as to the results of tests he conducted. We have reviewed Ford's remaining exceptions and affirm them pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23 based upon the following authorities: Baker v. Port City Steel Erectors, Inc. , 261 S.C. 469, 200 S.E. (2d) 681 (1973) (alleged hearsay); State v. Lynn , 277 S.C. 222, 284 S.E. (2d) 786 (1981) (prior inconsistent statement). For the reasons discussed above, the lower court is affirmed and the motion for leave to request a new trial based on after-discovered evidence is denied. GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, CHANDLER and FINNEY, JJ., concur.