Opinion ID: 2102287
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Expert Testimony on a Controlled Substance

Text: Next, Seward argues that even if chemical testing is not required, this Court should require some expert testimony on whether the substance he possessed was an illegal drug. [8] Seward contends that because of the State's discovery violations, no expert testimony of this nature was admissible in his trial. This Court has declined to require expert testimony to prove the elements of a crime when other credible evidence is available. [9] This is not a case, however, where no expert testimony was presented to establish that the drugs seized were in fact illegal substances. The Superior Court permitted the admission in evidence of the medical examiner's report, although it was not produced until five days before trial. [10] The drugs that tested positive as crack cocaine were the drugs found in the co-defendant Collins' mouth. There was testimony that Seward gave a small white chunky substance or pebbles to Collins, the co-defendant, shortly before Collins was arrested. There, therefore, was sufficient evidence identifying the substance Seward possessed as an illegal drug to uphold Seward's convictions.