We improvidently allowed discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision (Although the state’s fingerprint expert explained her usual procedure for comparing fingerprints, she provided no detail in testifying about how she arrived at her conclusions in this case. She thus failed to demonstrate that she “applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case,” as required by N.C. R. Evid. 702(a)(3). The trial court abused its discretion by admitting this testimony, but, given all of the evidence pointing to defendant’s guilt, he was not prejudiced by the erroneous admission of the expert’s testimony.).
State v. McPhaul (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-079-18, 1 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Hoke County Superior Court (James Webb, J.) On discretionary review from the Court of Appeals. William Hart for the state; Amanda Zimmer for defendant; James Gatehouse, Sharon Katz, and Matthew Brock for amici curiae. N.C. S. Ct.