Under the circumstances of this case the state's expert witness was properly qualified to express his opinion as to hair comparisons. See State v. Maxie, 513 S.W.2d 338, 344 (Mo. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 930, 95 S.Ct. 1132, 43 L.Ed.2d 40 (1975); State v. Stevens, 502 S.W.2d 335, 338 (Mo. 1973). A fortiori, a sufficient basis exists to support a finding of scientific reliability of hair comparisons.
See State v. Bradley, 485 S.W.2d 408, 412 (Mo. 1972). Defendant's unexplained possession of property recently stolen from the optical store, State v. Bradley, supra, and the fact that glass particles were removed from defendant's clothing which matched the broken window glass from Overland Optical Co., see State v. Stevens, 502 S.W.2d 335, 336-337 (Mo. 1973), are sufficient to support an inference that defendant was the one who broke into and entered the store.
He spent 30 to 35 percent of his time doing laboratory work. He had attended many seminars relating to the identification and analysis of blood and had received laboratory training in that field, including training sessions held under the auspices of the F.B.I. and the Missouri Highway Patrol. This court and the Missouri Supreme Court have both held that Smith is an expert in this field and is qualified to give an opinion regarding blood identification and blood analysis. State v. Stevens, 502 S.W.2d 335, 338 (Mo. 1973); State v. Jones, 518 S.W.2d 304, 311 (Mo.App. 1975). Smith was qualified to give his opinion on the identification of a substance as blood and the type of blood it appeared to be. The assignment of error is denied.
State v. Burnett, supra. Detective Bray, who seized the exhibit, testified the clothes were in the same condition as when seized except that small samples of material had been removed for testing. This showed "sameness of condition." State v. Stevens, 502 S.W.2d 335, 337-38[5] (Mo. 1973). We find no abuse of the trial court's broad discretion in admitting the evidence of defendant's clothing upon the chain of custody established State v. Turner, 543 S.W.2d 270, 272-73[3-5] (Mo.App. 1976).