dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the State laid an inadequate foundation for introduction of the urinalysis evidence. The majority concludes that the State did not establish that the operator of the machine qualified as an expert and the State failed to establish the scientific reliability of the urinalysis equipment itself. I disagree on both counts.
The majority cites from Clark v. State, 580 N.E.2d 708 (Ind.1991), the appropriate standard for reviewing whether a witness is qualified to testify. No quantum of knowledge is necessary to qualify the witness. Therefore, it is not surprising that our review is deferential, calling for reversal only in eases of abuse of discretion. Id.
In the instant ease, Pulley, the operator of the CIVA machine, testified that he had attended CIVA schooling for four weeks, and completed all the training necessary to become an operator of the CIVA urinalysis machine. He testified that he had been employed as a lab technician for five-and-one-half years, during which time he had tested more than 10,000 samples. During that period, he has been called upon to testify in court “roughly a hundred times.” Record at 62. Nevertheless, the majority rejects Pulley’s qualification as an expert because he “could not explain the scientific basis for the test.” Op. at 1115. I presume the majority’s conclusion in this regard is based upon Pulley’s testimony that he was unfamiliar with the internal functioning of the urinalysis machine. I do not agree that such knowledge was necessary to qualify Pulley as an expert.
As an operator of the machine, as opposed to, for instance, its designer, Pulley was not disqualified as an expert merely because he did not know the mechanical specifics of how the machine performed its task. As the operator, to be qualified as an expert it was enough that he possessed expertise in the use of the machine. The CIVA machine measured the presence of certain chemicals in the urine, including some indicating the presence of marijuana. Pulley evinced detailed knowledge with respect to what the CIVA machine was designed to test, how the machine was operated, and how the results of such tests were interpreted.
Comparing Pulley’s credentials with those found acceptable in Clark v. State, 580 N.E.2d 708 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), and Fox v. State, 506 N.E.2d 1090 (Ind.1987), I conclude that the qualification of Pulley as an expert was not erroneous. In Clark, the witness stated only that he had received training to be a lab technician, named the person who had trained him, arid identified the nature of his certification. In Fox, the proposed expert testified that he had attended training for one to two weeks, that the training was supervised by someone experienced in the field, but that he had never testified at a trial as an expert on the subject.
Pulley provided more detailed testimony about his training than was provided in either Clark or Fox. Pulley’s training appears to have been at least as rigorous as was the ease in Clark and Fox. Moreover, Pulley’s experience as an operator was extensive and his experience as an expert witness far exceeded that of the expert in Fox. Therefore, consistent with the standard applied in both Clark and Fox, I believe that Pulley qualified as an expert in the areas for which his expert testimony was offered, i.e., the operation of the CIVA iriachine and the interpretation of CIVA machine test results.
I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there was an insufficient foundation laid for the urinalysis equipment itself. As the majority notes, the record identifies the equipment in question as a “CIVA” machine. However, there are also references made to “Seva” and “Syva” machines. Because of the phonetic similarity and the context in which the references appear in the record, it is clear to me that “Seva”, “Syva”, and “CIVA” all refer to the same machine. Our court has already recognized the CIVA machine’s reliability for purposes of laying a foundation for accepting scientific and expert testimony:
Neither do we have any difficulty in ruling that the ADX Abbott system has reached a similar level of acceptance because, accord*1117ing to Penrod, “there is no difference between [the] Abbott Laboratories machine and the EMIT Cobus or the Seva Corporation.... Those are basically the same technologies. Although the names may be a little different they are basically the same.” ... Based upon this statement, the trial court did not err in admitting the test results over Penrod’s objection that an inadequate foundation had been laid for the scientific reliability of the ADX Abbott machine.
Penrod v. State, 611 N.E.2d 653, 654 (Ind.Ct. App.1993).
It is beyond debate' that urinalysis has achieved a sufficient level of scientific reliability to be accepted into evidence by our courts. In my view, the above excerpt from Penrod reflects a recognition of the reliability not only of urinalysis machines made by ADX Abbott, but also of those manufactured by EMIT Cobus and Seva, or CIVA.
I would affirm the judgment.