Turner v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana · 2011 · Evidence

953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceexpert testimonyfirearms tool mark identificationRule 702DauberthearsayConfrontation Clauseopening the door

Facts

The State introduced expert testimony from a firearms and tool mark examiner who concluded that a tool mark on an unfired 7.62x39 mm cartridge found in Michelle Clifton's house matched tool marks on four discharged casings found at the crime scene, although the precise source of the tool mark was unknown and no suspect firearm had been recovered. Turner objected to that testimony, to redirect testimony indicating a prior examiner agreed with the identification, and to evidence that shortly before the shootings Turner discussed robbing another person and kidnapping a child from the target house to get money. The State also introduced testimony explaining why one witness did not testify and testimony that Turner's mother told Clifton, "Desmond said you don't have to talk to nobody." Turner further argued that the evidence identifying him as a perpetrator rested on incredibly dubious testimony.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the challenged expert, hearsay, and other-acts evidence, and whether the evidence was sufficient to identify Turner as a participant in the crimes. More specifically, the case asked how Indiana Rule 702 applies to firearms tool mark testimony when no weapon is available, when hearsay is admissible after a party opens the door, and when prior bad acts are admissible to show motive under Rule 404(b).

Rule

Under Indiana Evidence Rule 702(b), expert scientific testimony is admissible if the trial court is satisfied that the scientific principles on which it rests are reliable; Daubert may be helpful but is not controlling, and weaknesses in the connection between evidence and the defendant generally go to weight rather than admissibility. Otherwise inadmissible hearsay may become admissible when the opposing party opens the door by creating a false or misleading impression of the facts. Rule 404(b) bars other-acts evidence to prove propensity, but permits it for non-propensity purposes such as motive, and evidence of motive is always relevant in proving a crime. The incredible dubiosity rule applies only where a sole witness gives inherently contradictory, equivocal, or coerced testimony and there is a lack of circumstantial evidence of guilt.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a homicide trial in Fort Wayne, the State offers a firearms examiner who compared an unfired rifle cartridge found in Nolan Pierce's garage with several spent casings from the scene. No gun was ever recovered, and the examiner says the matching sidewall marks were made by the same tool, although she cannot conclusively determine what part of a firearm created them.

Nolan objects that the testimony is inadmissible because no weapon was found and the exact source of the marks is unknown. How should the court rule?

Explanation. Under Indiana Rule 702(b), the court must be satisfied that the scientific principles are reliable. The majority held that uncertainty about whether marks resulted from chambering, and the lack of a recovered firearm, weakened the inference but did not make the testimony inadmissible. Those points are proper subjects for cross-examination and go to weight, not admissibility.