Opinion ID: 344247
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Expert's Qualifications.

Text: 59 In appellant's fourth enumeration of error, it is contended that the trial court erred in permitting the Government's witness to give an expert opinion as to the nature of the substance introduced into evidence. The transcript of the trial reveals the following dialogue taking place immediately following the calling of the witness and the announcement by the Government of its intention to qualify the witness as an expert: 60 THE COURT: Is there a dispute as to the identity of the substance? 61 Then it seems to me that it should be admitted that the substance involved is whatever it is. If there is no dispute about it, there is no need to take up the Jury's time going through all the laborious details of identifying the substance if there is no dispute about the substance. 62 MR. KIEFER (defense counsel): Your Honor, the only thing, we don't know what it is supposed to be. I can't stipulate that this is marihuana because we have never run any tests on it 63 THE COURT: Well, is there any dispute about the findings will there be any evidence to dispute the findings 64 MR. KIEFER: No sir, no evidence to dispute the findings. 65 THE COURT: All right. Simply ask him what it is, and that is about all you need to do, if he has proved it and there is no dispute about it. 66 BY MR. COCHRAN (the prosecutor): Mr. Ethridge, in June, 1975 67 THE COURT: Is this the stuff right here in these boxes that were seized? 68 MR. COCHRAN: Yes, Your Honor. 69 THE COURT: Have you seen what is in these boxes? 70 THE WITNESS: Yes. 71 THE COURT: And have you examined it? 72 THE WITNESS: Yes. 73 THE COURT: Have you analyzed it? 74 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 75 THE COURT: What is it? 76 THE WITNESS: It's marihuana. 77 On cross-examination of the Government's expert witness, counsel for the appellant elicited the following credentials establishing the expertise of the witness: 78 (1) that the witness had a Bachelor of Science degree in biology; 79 (2) that as of the time he analyzed the substance, the witness had been a criminalist for a year and a half and a laboratory criminalist for ten months; 80 (3) that the witness had examined approximately 3500 individual items that were suspected marijuana. 81 While we agree with appellant that the government's witness had not been qualified when he gave his opinion as to the nature of the substance, it is clear to us that, after cross-examination of the witness, his expert qualifications had been established. Furthermore, the failure of defense counsel to object at trial and our opinion that if error occurred it was not plain error, leads us to the conclusion that this challenge to appellant's conviction lacks merit. 82