“The only basis for Dr. Long’s testimony was his review of the transcript of the victim’s testimony.”
How later courts described this case
- “The only basis for Dr. Long’s testimony was his review of the transcript of the victim’s testimony.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge ORR
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
With the exception of the issue pertaining to the testimony of the hair analysis expert, I concur in the majority opinion. With respect to the issue pertaining to the hair analysis expert’s testimony, I respectfully dissent. In my view, State v. Faircloth, 99 N.C. App. 685 , 394 S.E.2d 198 (1990), is not distinguishable from the case sub judice.
This Court in Faircloth found that the expert’s testimony that “it would be improbable that these hairs would have originated from another individual” was “effectively, a positive identification of defendant.” Id. at 692 , 394 S.E.2d at 202 . The expert testified below that “it is quite likely to have originated from Keith Suddreth,” and in response to a question as to how likely it is to have originated from Keith Suddreth, he stated that it is “certainly better than one out of a hundred, and my estimation is close to one out of a thousand.” I would hold that here, as in Faircloth , the expert’s testimony was an impermissible positive identification of defendant. The hair comparison analysis was an important link in establishing the identity of defendant as the perpetrator where there was only the victim’s opinion that the masked assailant was the defendant and there were alibi witnesses for the defendant. I would therefore hold that this testimony is inadmissible and that defendant is entitled to a new trial.