With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In fact, he states in his brief that the issue specifically relates to the reliability of the method used in the present case. Agent Deadman clearly established what the standard procedures for DNA identification were. He also established he and his assistant followed standard procedure in the instant case, without any deviation. Furthermore, contrary to McElroy’s contention that Agent Deadman improperly relied on information from an “outside source,” it is clear he relied only on information gleaned under his direct supervision. This type of information was routinely relied upon in arriving at a conclusion on the identification of the source of a sample. This evidence was admissible as the basis for Agent Deadman’s conclusions. See, Miller v. State (1991), Ind., 575 N.E.2d 272, 274 (<HOLDING>). McElroy also contends the trial court erred

A: holding doctors letter is inadmissible hearsay
B: holding that hearsay within a police report was inadmissible
C: holding that even inadmissible hearsay is admissible if of the type generally relied upon by experts in the field
D: recognizing that while a testifying expert may rely upon facts or data made known to the expert before the hearing and even may rely upon opinions if reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field the ipse dixit of that reliance does not make those facts data or opinions true particularly where  they are derived largely from hearsay
C.