Opinion ID: 1895332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Objections to Experimental Evidence.

Text: Finally, we consider defendant's claims that evidence admitted concerning the results of certain experiments conducted on physical evidence in the case by investigators is lacking in scientific reliability. Such claims are made with respect to (1) testimony about test firings through the windows of the Willits automobile, (2) testimony relating to the absence of postal cancellation impressions on the letter from defendant to Willits found near her body, and (3) testimony concerning similarities of a blindfold found on Willits' body and a pillowcase located at defendant's parents' home. The primary flaw in defendant's argument on all of these subjects is the assumption that the admission of the challenged evidence depends upon scientific reliability. Iowa Rule of Evidence 702 provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. (Emphasis added.) The or otherwise language of this rule suggests that, without regard to scientific reliability or expert opinion, a witness may describe relevant information produced by an experiment or comparison involving physical evidence in the case. All that is required in order to qualify the witness for this purpose is sufficient personal knowledge to accurately describe the particular experiment or comparison. One who possesses such knowledge has the specialized knowledge necessary to assist the trier of fact if the results of the experiment or comparison is helpful to a clear understanding or determination of some fact in issue. This interpretation of rule 702 is fostered in C. McCormick Evidence § 202, at 600-01 (Cleary ed.1984) (The simplest experiments are often the most convincing, and expert testimony is not always cost-effective.). See also Grant v. Younker Brothers, 244 Iowa 958, 965, 58 N.W.2d 834, 839 (1953). Judged by these standards, we conclude that all of the defendant's objections to the admission of experimental or comparison data were properly overruled by the trial court. We have considered all issues presented. We conclude that the error discussed in Division I of this opinion requires that the judgment of conviction on each count be reversed. The cause is remanded to the district court for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED.