as an expert witness in forensic chemistry. He has worked over thirty-four years with the SBI, including twenty-four years as a forensic chemist, and he handles pharmaceuticals on nearly a daily basis. The prosecutor at trial referred to him as ‘supremely qualified.’ ” Id. at 145, 694 S.E.2d at 746. 4 . This Court held that “the trial court erred ... by admitting testimony by Special Agent Allcox identifying certain items as controlled substances on the basis of a visual identification process.” State v. Ward, — N.C. App. —, —, 681 S.E.2d 354, 373 (2009). 5 . The Court also noted that although not binding precedent, other jurisdictions have reached similar conclusions. Id. at 142 n.4, 694 S.E.2d at 744 n.4 (citing People v. Mocaby, 882 N.E.2d 1162, 1167 (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. 2008) (<HOLDING>); State v. Colquitt, 137 P.3d 892, 894 (Wash.
holding expert testimony remedies speculation by the court holding that experts opinion on proximate causation amounted to no more than mere conjecture and speculation as to events surrounding accident holding that expert scientific testimony must be grounded in the methods and procedures of science and based on more than a subjective belief or unsupported speculation holding that expert witness testimony identifying tablets as containing controlled substances based on comparing them to pictures in a book amounted to conjecture and speculation and was not a conclusive scientific analysis on which the prosecution could rely to carry its burden of proof holding that burden of clear and convincing proof cannot be satisfied by mere conjecture or speculation