Opinion ID: 2630966
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The hair follicle tests were properly admitted.

Text: [T]he appropriate test for measuring the scientific reliability of evidence is I.R.E. 702. State v. Gleason, 123 Idaho 62, 65, 844 P.2d 691, 694 (1992). Idaho 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. Formal training is not necessary, but practical experience or special knowledge must be shown to bring a witness within the category of an expert. Weeks v. E. Idaho Health Servs., 143 Idaho 834, 837, 153 P.3d 1180, 1183 (2007). This Court has not adopted the standard that a scientific theory must be commonly agreed upon or generally accepted. Id. at 838, 153 P.3d at 1184. Thus, `[t]he question under the evidence rule is simply whether the expert's knowledge will assist the trier of fact; not whether the information upon which the expert's opinion is based is commonly agreed upon.' Id. (quoting State v. Merwin, 131 Idaho 642, 646, 962 P.2d 1026, 1030 (1998) (alteration in original)). In Coombs v. Curnow, this Court found that a doctor's opinion as to the cause of the victim's death was scientifically reliable where the doctor testified that his opinion was based on basic principles of medicine that he learned in medical school and while working in the ICU; was a board certified pediatrician, anesthesiologist, and professor of anesthesiology and pediatrics at Stanford Medical School; and had authored numerous journal articles and textbook chapters on various subjects including those at issue. 148 Idaho 129, 142-43, 219 P.3d 453, 466-67 (2009). The Court found that [b]ased on these facts, it is reasonable to conclude [the doctor] was familiar enough with basic principles of medicine to form his opinion. Id. at 142, 219 P.3d at 466. In this case, we hold that the magistrate court's decision to admit the hair follicle testing results was within its discretion as the testimony offered by Dr. Engelhart and the employees of Weinhoff Drug Testing demonstrated the scientific reliability of the evidence. Gary Lee, a drug tester for Weinhoff Drug Testing, testified as to the process for collecting a hair sample. Lee then testified that Petitioner's Exhibit 10 was the chain of custody form for Doe, and that he witnessed that the proper procedures were followed when Doe's hair was cut for the hair follicle test. Counsel for Doe objected to the admission of the exhibit on the basis that Doe had not initialed the chain of custody form as to the accuracy of the sample. The court conditionally admitted the form, recognizing that there is an infirmity, in the sense that there is no confirmation that [Doe] did, in fact, initial, and there may be a part 2 [to the form]. Tara Kalar also testified as to the collection procedures followed at Weinhoff Drug Testing in general and the specific hair follicle collection for A.D. and Je.D. The signed donor section of the chain of custody forms for Doe, A.D., and Je.D. were then introduced as Petitioner's Exhibit 14 through the testimony of Cindy Hunt, who stated that on the form the donor acknowledges that it is their specimen, it's not adulterated, it was sealed in front of them, and the informationthe rest of the information on the form is correct. And they sign it, print their name, the date of the collection, they're asked for a daytime and evening phone number, and their date of birth. Counsel for Doe did not object to the admission of the exhibit. Counsel did object to the admission of Petitioner's Exhibit 13, which included no-show calendars for Doe, as well as three positive test results, on the basis that we don't have any information, from the labs themselves, as to the accuracy of the test results or the procedure that was used to document those results. We simply have abasically a transcription of what those results are from someone else. So, there is aa significant piece of foundational evidence missing with regard to these test results. This foundation was then provided through the testimony of Dr. Engelhart, which occurred later in the hearings. Dr. Engelhart testified as to the accuracy of the test results and the procedures that were used to document the results. He also testified as to his training and experience, which included a Ph.D. in Chemistry, eleven years experience doing toxicology, and over four years as the lab director for Omega Laboratories, which does exclusively hair follicle testing for drugs. Dr. Engelhart was also questioned about Omega Laboratories's certifications and he stated that the laboratory is certified for hair follicle testing by the New York State Department of Health, and by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Petitioner's Exhibits 15 and 16, the test results from Omega Laboratories, were admitted based on Dr. Engelhart's testimony. Counsel for Doe objected to the admission of the last two pages of the test results on the basis that there was no testimony concerning them and the court stated that it would give no weight to those two pages of the exhibits, but would leave the exhibits intact. Outside of that objection, counsel for Doe did not object to Dr. Engelhart's testimony. We find that there is ample support in the record to affirm the district court's decision to admit the hair follicle testing results. The testimony of each expert witness was based on their individual knowledge, education, and training. Therefore, the testimony satisfied the requirements of I.R.E. 702 and was supported by adequate foundation. As the State summed up in its brief on appeal: Through the testimony of several witnesses, the State established a chain of custody for the collection of the samples; that a standardized procedure was followed in the collection of each of the samples; that each sample was assigned a number for identification; that each sample was labeled and marked at various stages of the procedure for identification of the sample; that the samples were sent to Omega Laboratories for testing; that Omega Laboratories received the samples and conducted drug testing on each of the samples; that Omega Laboratories followed a standardized procedure to identify and test each of the samples; that Omega Laboratories utilized two forms of testing in the process, enzyme-amino assay techniques and gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS); and that GCMS is the standard confirmatory test for the drug testing industry. Moreover, the district court recognized its discretionary role in admitting the evidence; it acted within the boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the applicable legal standards by ensuring that each expert was adequately qualified to provide such testimony; and it based its decision on an exercise of reason.