State v. Stevens

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. White

    621 S.W.2d 287 (Mo. 1981)   Cited 43 times
    In State v. White, 621 S.W.2d 287, 292 (Mo. 1981), the Supreme Court considered whether microscopic hair comparison expert testimony has sufficient scientific acceptance to be admissible.

    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.

  2. State v. Cameron

    604 S.W.2d 653 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 48 times

    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.

  3. State v. Hanson

    587 S.W.2d 895 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 34 times

    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.

  4. State v. Wagner

    587 S.W.2d 299 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 10 times

    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).