# Reid v. State

> Indiana Supreme Court · February 6, 1978 · 267 Ind. 555

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533826

## Case

- **Full name:** Harry Edward Reid v. State of Indiana
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 6, 1978
- **Citations:** 267 Ind. 555; 372 N.E.2d 1149; 1978 Ind. LEXIS 599
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by DeBruler
- **Judges:** Prentice, Debruler
- **Cited by:** 91 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533826

## Opinion text

Opinion Concurring in Result
DeBruler, J.
Appellant’s counsel, through his questioning, amply demonstrated that Sgt. Chlebek had absolutely no understanding of the principles underlying the T.M.D.T., but simply followed the manufacturer’s instructions. The question presented here is whether the “expert” must understand and be capable of explaining the underlying principles to be qualified to describe a test he had performed and draw conclusions therefrom. Sergeant Chlebek knew how to perform the test, but did not know why the test was valid; in effect the absent manufacturer of the testing kit is the “expert” who vouches for the test’s validity and informs the jury that the “blackish purplish” glow observed by Sgt. Chlebek on appellant’s hand *568 meant that the hand had recently come in contact with a metal object. Chlebek could not identify the substance he sprayed on appellant’s hand other than to state that it was a reagent. Absent a demonstration to the satisfaction of the court that a newly developed test such as this one produces reliable results which can be correctly interpreted by a trained technician, I believe it is error to permit the technician to state a conclusion from some manufacturer’s manual.
However, under the circumstances of this case the erroneous admission of Sgt. Chlebek’s testimony was harmless and does not warrant reversal. The purpose of this scientific evidence was to provide a fact to aid the jury in inferring that appellant had recently held a gun in his hand. In this case appellant shot Wesson before a group of people outside of Jelly’s Bar in an argument over the loss by appellant of $40.00. At least three of the onlookers testified at the trial that appellant shot Wesson with a pistol which he held.
Note. — Reported at 372 N.E.2d 1149 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533826. Public record. Not legal advice.