Frye test in Washington

2025Expert testimony is admissible under ER 702 if the court determines that (1) the witness qualifies as an expert, and 19 Because we hold that the trial court did not err in submitting the exhibits as business records, Standley’s remaining arguments regarding their admission are moot. 20 In contrast to the Frye test, Frye v. United States, 54 U.S. App. D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923), “ER 702 concerns the use of existing scientific methodology and excludes testimony ‘where the expert fails to adhere to that reliable methodology.’” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784 , 798, 453 P.3d 696 (2019) (emphasis o

2025Expert testimony is admissible under ER 702 if the court determines that (1) the witness qualifies as an expert, and 19 Because we hold that the trial court did not err in submitting the exhibits as business records, Standley’s remaining arguments regarding their admission are moot. 20 In contrast to the Frye test, Frye v. United States, 54 U.S. App. D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923), “ER 702 concerns the use of existing scientific methodology and excludes testimony ‘where the expert fails to adhere to that reliable methodology.’” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784 , 798, 453 P.3d 696 (2019) (emphasis o

2025Our Supreme Court has remarked, “[o]nce this court has made a determination that the Frye test is met as to a specific novel scientific theory or principle, trial courts can generally rely upon that determination as settling such theory’s admissibility in future cases.” State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879 , 888 n.3, 846 P.2d 502 (1993), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Buckner, 133 Wn.2d 63 , 941 P.2d 667 (1997).

2025Our Supreme Court has remarked, “[o]nce this court has made a determination that the Frye test is met as to a specific novel scientific theory or principle, trial courts can generally rely upon that determination as settling such theory’s admissibility in future cases.” State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879 , 888 n.3, 846 P.2d 502 (1993), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Buckner, 133 Wn.2d 63 , 941 P.2d 667 (1997).

2023Frye analysis A Frye analysis seeks to determine “whether the evidence offered is based on established scientific methodology.” Anderson, 172 Wn.2d at 603 (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 829 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006)).

2023Frye analysis A Frye analysis seeks to determine “whether the evidence offered is based on established scientific methodology.” Anderson, 172 Wn.2d at 603 (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 829 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006)).

2023Frye analysis A Frye analysis seeks to determine “whether the evidence offered is based on established scientific methodology.” Anderson, 172 Wn.2d at 603 (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 829 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006)).

2023Frye analysis A Frye analysis seeks to determine “whether the evidence offered is based on established scientific methodology.” Anderson, 172 Wn.2d at 603 (quoting State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 829 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006)).

2024The Frye test is a threshold inquiry to be considered in determine [sic] the admissibility of evidence under ER 702. 3 No. 39574-0-III State v. Beal State v. Riker, 123 Wn.2d at 360 footnote 1.

2024The Frye test is a threshold inquiry to be considered in determine [sic] the admissibility of evidence under ER 702. 3 No. 39574-0-III State v. Beal State v. Riker, 123 Wn.2d at 360 footnote 1.

2026Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Anderson Coatings, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 593 (2011) analyzed the Frye test, not ER 702.

2026Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Anderson Coatings, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 593 (2011) analyzed the Frye test, not ER 702.

2013State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984); see also State v. Hiker, 123 Wn.2d 351 , 360 n.1, 869 P.2d 43 (1994) (reaffirming the Frye test in a criminal case despite Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L.

2013State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984); see also State v. Hiker, 123 Wn.2d 351 , 360 n.1, 869 P.2d 43 (1994) (reaffirming the Frye test in a criminal case despite Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L.

2020App. 484, 492 , 355 P.3d 355 (2015). “‘The Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community before admitting it into evidence.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 990 (2004)). “‘[T]he core concern . . . is only whether the evidence being offered is based on 8 Fugle cites Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113-14 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.

2020App. 484, 492 , 355 P.3d 355 (2015). “‘The Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community before admitting it into evidence.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 990 (2004)). “‘[T]he core concern . . . is only whether the evidence being offered is based on 8 Fugle cites Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113-14 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.

2011The court noted that Post attempted to "sidestep the fact that he did not seek a Frye hearing in the trial court," and held that he "thus, has not preserved an evidentiary challenge for review." Post, 145 Wash.App. at 755-56 , 187 P.3d 803 (footnote omitted). ¶ 37 Similarly, Morgan never objected to the testimony about the paraphilia NOS (nonconsent) diagnosis or challenged its admissibility at trial.

2011The court noted that Post attempted to "sidestep the fact that he did not seek a Frye hearing in the trial court," and held that he "thus, has not preserved an evidentiary challenge for review." Post, 145 Wash.App. at 755-56 , 187 P.3d 803 (footnote omitted). ¶ 37 Similarly, Morgan never objected to the testimony about the paraphilia NOS (nonconsent) diagnosis or challenged its admissibility at trial.

2000Compare Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d at 899 , 846 P.2d 502 (DNA typing is subject to Frye because of the complexity of the DNA process) and Woo, 84 Wash.2d at 473-75 , 527 P.2d 271 (explicitly adopting Frye for determining the admissibility of polygraph examinations) with State v. Noltie, 57 Wash.App. 21, 29-30 , 786 P.2d 332 (1990) (holding Frye does not apply to colposcopic evidence because it is in general use in the medical community and is no more "novel" than binoculars or a weak microscope, even though its use in child abuse cases was relatively recent), aff'd, 116 Wash.2d 831 , 809 P.2d 190 (

2000Compare Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d at 899 , 846 P.2d 502 (DNA typing is subject to Frye because of the complexity of the DNA process) and Woo, 84 Wash.2d at 473-75 , 527 P.2d 271 (explicitly adopting Frye for determining the admissibility of polygraph examinations) with State v. Noltie, 57 Wash.App. 21, 29-30 , 786 P.2d 332 (1990) (holding Frye does not apply to colposcopic evidence because it is in general use in the medical community and is no more "novel" than binoculars or a weak microscope, even though its use in child abuse cases was relatively recent), aff'd, 116 Wash.2d 831 , 809 P.2d 190 (

2026“If the Frye test is satisfied, the trial court must then determine whether expert testimony should be admitted under the two-part test of ER 702, i.e., whether the expert qualifies as an expert, and whether the expert’s testimony would be helpful to the trial of fact.” State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 256 , 922 P.2d 1304 (1996).

2026“If the Frye test is satisfied, the trial court must then determine whether expert testimony should be admitted under the two-part test of ER 702, i.e., whether the expert qualifies as an expert, and whether the expert’s testimony would be helpful to the trial of fact.” State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 256 , 922 P.2d 1304 (1996).

2019Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24,41 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994), DeJesus contends that the relevant community includes “‘the community of scientists familiar with the challenged theory.” He argues, therefore, that the relevant community includes those who contributed to the PCAST report and the 2008 and 2009 NRC reports, as well as the defense experts in support of his Frye motion.

2019Russell, 125 Wn.2d 24,41 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994), DeJesus contends that the relevant community includes “‘the community of scientists familiar with the challenged theory.” He argues, therefore, that the relevant community includes those who contributed to the PCAST report and the 2008 and 2009 NRC reports, as well as the defense experts in support of his Frye motion.

2001But “evidence that does not involve new methods of proof or new scientific principles is not subject to the Frye test.” Baity, 140 Wn.2d at 10 (citing Ortiz, 119 Wn.2d at 310-11 ).

2001But “evidence that does not involve new methods of proof or new scientific principles is not subject to the Frye test.” Baity, 140 Wn.2d at 10 (citing Ortiz, 119 Wn.2d at 310-11 ).

2020App. 484, 492 , 355 P.3d 355 (2015). “‘The Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community before admitting it into evidence.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 990 (2004)). “‘[T]he core concern . . . is only whether the evidence being offered is based on 8 Fugle cites Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113-14 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.

2020App. 484, 492 , 355 P.3d 355 (2015). “‘The Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community before admitting it into evidence.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 990 (2004)). “‘[T]he core concern . . . is only whether the evidence being offered is based on 8 Fugle cites Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113-14 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.

2004App. 844, 862-63 , 51 P.3d 188 (2002) (concluding that evidence from a police tracking device is not subject to a Frye analysis), review denied, 148 Wn.2d 1022 (2003); State v. Noltie, 57 Wn.

2004App. 844, 862-63 , 51 P.3d 188 (2002) (concluding that evidence from a police tracking device is not subject to a Frye analysis), review denied, 148 Wn.2d 1022 (2003); State v. Noltie, 57 Wn.

2018Br. of Amicus Curiae WAPA at 12-13; State v. Canaday, 90 Wn.2d 808, 813 , 585 P.2d 1185 (1978) (explicitly adopting the Frye standard in Washington); State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 255 , 922 P.2d 1304 (1996)(adhering to the Frye standard).

2018Br. of Amicus Curiae WAPA at 12-13; State v. Canaday, 90 Wn.2d 808, 813 , 585 P.2d 1185 (1978) (explicitly adopting the Frye standard in Washington); State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 255 , 922 P.2d 1304 (1996)(adhering to the Frye standard).

2010See State v. Hayden, 90 Wash.App. 100, 107 , 950 P.2d 1024 (1998) (finding that enhanced digital imaging was not a novel process but nevertheless addressing the Frye issue because whether the process was well accepted was a question of first impression).

2010App. 100, 107 , 950 P.2d 1024 (1998) (finding that enhanced digital imaging was not a novel process but nevertheless addressing the Frye issue because whether the process was well accepted was a question of first impression).

2026“If the Frye test is satisfied, the trial court must then determine whether expert testimony should be admitted under the two-part test of ER 702, i.e., whether the expert qualifies as an expert, and whether the expert’s testimony would be helpful to the trial of fact.” State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 256 , 922 P.2d 1304 (1996).

2026“If the Frye test is satisfied, the trial court must then determine whether expert testimony should be admitted under the two-part test of ER 702, i.e., whether the expert qualifies as an expert, and whether the expert’s testimony would be helpful to the trial of fact.” State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 256 , 922 P.2d 1304 (1996).

2020The Baity court concluded that the DRE protocol satisfied the Frye standard. 140 Wn.2d at 17 .

2020The Baity court concluded that the DRE protocol satisfied the Frye standard. 140 Wn.2d at 17 .

2019Under the Frye standard for admissibility, “evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” State v. Baity, 140 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 991 P.2d 1151 (2000) (quoting State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984)).

2019Under the Frye standard for admissibility, “evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” State v. Baity, 140 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 991 P.2d 1151 (2000) (quoting State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984)).

2015Restraint of Young, 122 Wn.2d 1, 56 , 857 P. 2d 989 ( 1993). " The Frye test is only implicated where the opinion offered is based upon novel science." Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 593, 611 , 260 P. 3d 857 ( 2011).

2015Restraint of Young, 122 Wn.2d 1, 56 , 857 P. 2d 989 ( 1993). " The Frye test is only implicated where the opinion offered is based upon novel science." Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 593, 611 , 260 P. 3d 857 ( 2011).

2025Expert testimony is admissible under ER 702 if the court determines that (1) the witness qualifies as an expert, and 19 Because we hold that the trial court did not err in submitting the exhibits as business records, Standley’s remaining arguments regarding their admission are moot. 20 In contrast to the Frye test, Frye v. United States, 54 U.S. App. D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923), “ER 702 concerns the use of existing scientific methodology and excludes testimony ‘where the expert fails to adhere to that reliable methodology.’” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784 , 798, 453 P.3d 696 (2019) (emphasis o

2025Expert testimony is admissible under ER 702 if the court determines that (1) the witness qualifies as an expert, and 19 Because we hold that the trial court did not err in submitting the exhibits as business records, Standley’s remaining arguments regarding their admission are moot. 20 In contrast to the Frye test, Frye v. United States, 54 U.S. App. D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923), “ER 702 concerns the use of existing scientific methodology and excludes testimony ‘where the expert fails to adhere to that reliable methodology.’” State v. Arndt, 194 Wn.2d 784 , 798, 453 P.3d 696 (2019) (emphasis o

2026The Frye test involves assessing whether this novel evidence “has a valid scientific basis.” Reese v. Stroh, 128 Wn.2d 300, 306 , 907 P.2d 282 (1995).

2026The Frye test involves assessing whether this novel evidence “has a valid scientific basis.” Reese v. Stroh, 128 Wn.2d 300, 306 , 907 P.2d 282 (1995).

2004App. 21, 29-30, 786 P.2d 332 (1990) (concluding that the colposcope is in general use in the medical community and is “no more a ‘novel’ device or scientific process subject to the Frye standard than binoculars or a weak microscope”), aff’d, 116 Wn.2d 831 , 809 P.2d 190 (1991).

2004App. 21, 29-30, 786 P.2d 332 (1990) (concluding that the colposcope is in general use in the medical community and is “no more a ‘novel’ device or scientific process subject to the Frye standard than binoculars or a weak microscope”), aff’d, 116 Wn.2d 831 , 809 P.2d 190 (1991).