¶ 13. The State cites Byrd v. State, 741 So.2d 1028, 1033 (Miss.App. 1999), for the proposition that the person who performs the actual testing is not required to testify. However, in that case, while the expert did not perform the actual testing, she did perform the scientific analysis.
Overall, we find Phillips's testimony did not violate Roberts's constitutional right to confront witnesses against him and was permissible under Rule 703. SeeByrd v. State, 741 So.2d 1028, 1033 (¶ 23) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (finding defendant in a rape trial was not denied confrontation when the DNA expert had not performed or observed the DNA testing procedures, but testified to her analysis of the scientific data obtained from the technicians). IV. Motion to Suppress
This Court has previously held that such testimony is admissible under these circumstances. Byrd v. State, 741 So.2d 1028 (¶¶ 22-23) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). Therefore, this Court finds that the trial court has not abused its discretion in allowing Ardis' testimony.
However, in light of Walton, we have found statutory waiver exists in some situations. E.g., Little v. State, 744 So.2d 339, 344-45 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999); Byrd v. State, 741 So.2d 1028, 1032 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999); Biggs v. State, 741 So.2d 318, 327 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). ¶ 29.