Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
33 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Longgreen2 sentences2008See Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long , 779 So.2d 198 , 202 (Ala. 2000) (stating that a veterinarian's expert testimony regarding the death of a horse derived from his knowledge, skill, and training and was not subject to the Frye standard); see also Minor v. State , 914 So.2d 372 , 400 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004) ("The Frye test . . . applies only to the admissibility of novel scientific evidence based on scientific tests or experiments."), and cases cited therein ( 914 So.2d at 400 -01 ). 2008See Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long , 779 So.2d 198 , 202 (Ala. 2000) (stating that a veterinarian's expert testimony regarding the death of a horse derived from his knowledge, skill, and training and was not subject to the Frye standard); see also Minor v. State , 914 So.2d 372 , 400 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004) ("The Frye test . . . applies only to the admissibility of novel scientific evidence based on scientific tests or experiments."), and cases cited therein ( 914 So.2d at 400 -01 ). | 5 | 5 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2012“The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15 “In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). “ “With respe 2012“The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15 “In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). “ “With respe | 4 | 5 |
Hoosier v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Alabama has applied the Frye test in the following cases: Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Sawyer, 901 So.2d 738 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (admission of asbestosis evidence); Clemons v. State, 55 So.3d 314 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), rev’d on other grounds, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala.2007) (admission of positron emission tomograph (“PET”) scan to diagnose old brain injury); Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (admission of battering-parent profile); Prewitt v. State, supra (admission of hypnotically induced recollection); Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (admission of evidence of battered-wif 2012Alabama has applied the Frye test in the following cases: Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Sawyer, 901 So.2d 738 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (admission of asbestosis evidence); Clemons v. State, 55 So.3d 314 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), rev’d on other grounds, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala.2007) (admission of positron emission tomograph (“PET”) scan to diagnose old brain injury); Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (admission of battering-parent profile); Prewitt v. State, supra (admission of hypnotically induced recollection); Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (admission of evidence of battered-wif | 4 | 4 |
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences2012Frye v. United States, 293 F. at 1014 .” Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554, 555 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). “ ‘[T]he Frye test has been either ignored or rejected in cases in which the method used by the expert was a matter of physical comparison rather than scientific test or experiment; ... the basic data upon which the expert relied was verifiable by the factfinder; ... or where established techniques were applied to the solution of novel problems. ... 1994Furthermore, in Robinson v. State, 574 So.2d 910 (Ala. Crim.App.1990), this court stated that expert testimony regarding certain established scientific evidence may be received into evidence without further reference to the test set out in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), either through judicial notice of the general acceptance of the procedure or through a determination that the Frye test does not apply because the evidence's reliability has been established. | 3 | 13 |
Ex Parte Dolvingreen2 sentences2005See Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 , 202 (Ala. 2000) (testimony of expert derived from his or her knowledge, skill, and training, rather than from scientific experiment, is not subject to Frye standard of admissibility); Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 , 679 (Ala. 1980) (a physical comparison of conditions, as opposed to a scientific test or experiment, is not governed by the Frye standard of admissibility). 4 At most, Trooper Jones admitted that the yaw marks were faint. 2005See Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 , 202 (Ala. 2000) (testimony of expert derived from his or her knowledge, skill, and training, rather than from scientific experiment, is not subject to Frye standard of admissibility); Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 , 679 (Ala. 1980) (a physical comparison of conditions, as opposed to a scientific test or experiment, is not governed by the Frye standard of admissibility). 4 At most, Trooper Jones admitted that the yaw marks were faint. | 3 | 9 |
Hill v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Alabama has applied the Frye test in the following cases: Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Sawyer, 901 So.2d 738 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (admission of asbestosis evidence); Clemons v. State, 55 So.3d 314 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), rev’d on other grounds, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala.2007) (admission of positron emission tomograph (“PET”) scan to diagnose old brain injury); Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (admission of battering-parent profile); Prewitt v. State, supra (admission of hypnotically induced recollection); Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (admission of evidence of battered-wif 2012Frye v. United States, 293 F. at 1014 .” Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554, 555 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). “ ‘[T]he Frye test has been either ignored or rejected in cases in which the method used by the expert was a matter of physical comparison rather than scientific test or experiment; ... the basic data upon which the expert relied was verifiable by the factfinder; ... or where established techniques were applied to the solution of novel problems. ... | 3 | 5 |
Minor v. Stategreen2 sentences2012“The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15 “In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). “ “With respe 2012“The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15 “In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). “ “With respe | 2 | 3 |
Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2012“The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15 “In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). “ “With respe 2012“The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15 “In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). “ “With respe | 2 | 3 |
Slay v. Keller Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2008The Frye standard provides that "a person who offers an opinion as a scientific expert must prove that he relied on scientific principles, methods, or procedures that have gained general acceptance in the field in which the expert is testifying." Slay v. Keller Indus., Inc. , 823 So.2d 623 , 626 (Ala. 2001). 2008The Frye standard provides that "a person who offers an opinion as a scientific expert must prove that he relied on scientific principles, methods, or procedures that have gained general acceptance in the field in which the expert is testifying." Slay v. Keller Indus., Inc. , 823 So.2d 623 , 626 (Ala. 2001). | 2 | 2 |
Prewitt v. Stategreen2 sentences2012“The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15 “In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). “ “With respe 2012“The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15 “In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). “ “With respe | 1 | 6 |
Ex Parte Perrygreen2 sentences2012Evid., provided: “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, ■experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” 13 At the time of the offenses and at the time of Thompson’s arrest and trial, the Frye test was the correct standard for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence in Alabama. 14 See Ex parte Perry, 586 So.2d 242 (Ala.1991). 2012Evid., provided: “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, ■experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” 13 At the time of the offenses and at the time of Thompson’s arrest and trial, the Frye test was the correct standard for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence in Alabama. 14 See Ex parte Perry, 586 So.2d 242 (Ala.1991). | 1 | 4 |
Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Sawyergreen2 sentences2012Alabama has applied the Frye test in the following cases: Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Sawyer, 901 So.2d 738 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (admission of asbestosis evidence); Clemons v. State, 55 So.3d 314 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), rev’d on other grounds, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala.2007) (admission of positron emission tomograph (“PET”) scan to diagnose old brain injury); Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (admission of battering-parent profile); Prewitt v. State, supra (admission of hypnotically induced recollection); Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (admission of evidence of battered-wif 2012Alabama has applied the Frye test in the following cases: Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Sawyer, 901 So.2d 738 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (admission of asbestosis evidence); Clemons v. State, 55 So.3d 314 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), rev’d on other grounds, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala.2007) (admission of positron emission tomograph (“PET”) scan to diagnose old brain injury); Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (admission of battering-parent profile); Prewitt v. State, supra (admission of hypnotically induced recollection); Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (admission of evidence of battered-wif | 1 | 2 |
Stewart v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 (Ala.2000) (holding that veterinarian's opinion as to cause of death of horses was not scientific evidence subject to admissibility requirements of Frye ); Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to testimony of forensic odontologist comparing skeletal remains with inter vivos photographs because testimony was in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments); Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to exp 2004See, e.g., Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 (Ala.2000) (holding that veterinarian's opinion as to cause of death of horses was not scientific evidence subject to admissibility requirements of Frye ); Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to testimony of forensic odontologist comparing skeletal remains with inter vivos photographs because testimony was in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments); Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to expe | 1 | 2 |
| US Sugar Corp. v. Hensongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Millry Mill Co. v. Manuelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Adams v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bundy v. Statered | 1 | 1 |
| Buhrle v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hawthorne v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Shirleyred | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hughesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| California v. Shirleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shepard v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Handley v. State
green
2 sentences1993Cf., Dolvin , [ 391 So.2d 677 (Ala. 1980)] (forensic odontology test is in the nature of a physical comparison rather than a scientific test); Handley , [ 515 So.2d 121 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987)] (admissibility *Page 233 of dental witness's bite mark does not depend on meeting the Frye standard)." Seewar , 601 So.2d at 200 . 1993Cf., Dolvin , [ 391 So.2d 677 (Ala. 1980)] (forensic odontology test is in the nature of a physical comparison rather than a scientific test); Handley , [ 515 So.2d 121 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987)] (admissibility *Page 233 of dental witness's bite mark does not depend on meeting the Frye standard)." Seewar , 601 So.2d at 200 . | 4 | 1988–1993 |
Dyas v. United States
green
2 sentences2012Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.Ápp.1985); Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973 , 98 S.Ct. 529 , 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed.1972). 2012Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.Ápp.1985); Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973 , 98 S.Ct. 529 , 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed.1972). | 3 | 1986–2012 |
Rivers v. Black
green
2 sentences2000See Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Rivers v. Black, 259 Ala. 528 , 68 So.2d 2 (1953)." Furthermore, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Drexler's testimony did not constitute novel scientific evidence and that therefore the Frye test did not govern its admissibility. 2000See Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Rivers v. Black, 259 Ala. 528 , 68 So.2d 2 (1953)." Furthermore, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Drexler's testimony did not constitute novel scientific evidence and that therefore the Frye test did not govern its admissibility. | 3 | 1985–2012 |
Dyas v. United States
green
2 sentences2012Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.Ápp.1985); Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973 , 98 S.Ct. 529 , 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed.1972). 2012Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.Ápp.1985); Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973 , 98 S.Ct. 529 , 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed.1972). | 3 | 1986–2012 |
Adams v. State
green
2 sentences2012Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.Ápp.1985); Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973 , 98 S.Ct. 529 , 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed.1972). 2012Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.Ápp.1985); Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973 , 98 S.Ct. 529 , 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed.1972). | 3 | 1986–2012 |
Simmons v. State
green
2 sentences2005See, e.g., Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 (Ala.2000) (holding that veterinarian's opinion as to cause of death of horses was not scientific evidence subject to admissibility requirements of Frye ); Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to testimony of forensic odontologist comparing skeletal remains with inter vivos photographs because testimony was in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments); Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to exp 2004See, e.g., Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 (Ala.2000) (holding that veterinarian's opinion as to cause of death of horses was not scientific evidence subject to admissibility requirements of Frye ); Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to testimony of forensic odontologist comparing skeletal remains with inter vivos photographs because testimony was in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments); Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to expe | 3 | 2004–2012 |
Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp.
green
2 sentences2012“The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15 “In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). “ “With respe 2012“The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15 “In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). “ “With respe | 2 | 2012–2017 |
Wynn v. State
green
2 sentences2012Alabama has applied the Frye test in the following cases: Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Sawyer, 901 So.2d 738 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (admission of asbestosis evidence); Clemons v. State, 55 So.3d 314 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), rev’d on other grounds, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala.2007) (admission of positron emission tomograph (“PET”) scan to diagnose old brain injury); Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (admission of battering-parent profile); Prewitt v. State, supra (admission of hypnotically induced recollection); Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (admission of evidence of battered-wif 2012Alabama has applied the Frye test in the following cases: Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Sawyer, 901 So.2d 738 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (admission of asbestosis evidence); Clemons v. State, 55 So.3d 314 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), rev’d on other grounds, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala.2007) (admission of positron emission tomograph (“PET”) scan to diagnose old brain injury); Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (admission of battering-parent profile); Prewitt v. State, supra (admission of hypnotically induced recollection); Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (admission of evidence of battered-wif | 2 | 1987–2012 |
Ferri v. United States
green
2 sentences2012Many of these cases have involved identification of bite marks by comparison of the defendant’s dental impressions to bite marks found on a victim’s body; ... and identification of footprints by comparing shoes found at the crime scene with shoes worn by the defendant; United States v. Ferri, 778 F.2d 985 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986); or by comparing footprints found at the crime scene with the defendant’s feet. 2012Many of these cases have involved identification of bite marks by comparison of the defendant’s dental impressions to bite marks found on a victim’s body; ... and identification of footprints by comparing shoes found at the crime scene with shoes worn by the defendant; United States v. Ferri, 778 F.2d 985 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986); or by comparing footprints found at the crime scene with the defendant’s feet. | 2 | 1990–2012 |
Ibn-Tamas v. United States
green
2 sentences2012Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923); Ibm-Tamas v. United States, 455 A.2d 893 (D.C.App.1983). 2012Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923); Ibm-Tamas v. United States, 455 A.2d 893 (D.C.App.1983). | 2 | 1986–2012 |
Turner v. State
green
2 sentences2012“The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15 “In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). “ “With respe 2012“The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15 “In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). “ “With respe | 2 | 2000–2012 |
Stewart v. State
green
2 sentences2005See, e.g., Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 (Ala.2000) (holding that veterinarian's opinion as to cause of death of horses was not scientific evidence subject to admissibility requirements of Frye ); Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to testimony of forensic odontologist comparing skeletal remains with inter vivos photographs because testimony was in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments); Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to exp 2004See, e.g., Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 (Ala.2000) (holding that veterinarian's opinion as to cause of death of horses was not scientific evidence subject to admissibility requirements of Frye ); Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to testimony of forensic odontologist comparing skeletal remains with inter vivos photographs because testimony was in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments); Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to expe | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Ex Parte Stewart
green
2 sentences2005See, e.g., Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 (Ala.2000) (holding that veterinarian's opinion as to cause of death of horses was not scientific evidence subject to admissibility requirements of Frye ); Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to testimony of forensic odontologist comparing skeletal remains with inter vivos photographs because testimony was in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments); Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to exp 2004See, e.g., Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 (Ala.2000) (holding that veterinarian's opinion as to cause of death of horses was not scientific evidence subject to admissibility requirements of Frye ); Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to testimony of forensic odontologist comparing skeletal remains with inter vivos photographs because testimony was in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments); Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to expe | 2 | 2004–2005 |
West v. State
green
2 sentences2005See, e.g., Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 (Ala.2000) (holding that veterinarian's opinion as to cause of death of horses was not scientific evidence subject to admissibility requirements of Frye ); Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to testimony of forensic odontologist comparing skeletal remains with inter vivos photographs because testimony was in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments); Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to exp 2004See, e.g., Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. v. Long, 779 So.2d 198 (Ala.2000) (holding that veterinarian's opinion as to cause of death of horses was not scientific evidence subject to admissibility requirements of Frye ); Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to testimony of forensic odontologist comparing skeletal remains with inter vivos photographs because testimony was in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments); Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (holding that Frye test was inapplicable to expe | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Ex Parte Hill
green
2 sentences1992Adams v. State , 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); Prewitt v. State , 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Dyas v. United States , 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973 , 98 S.Ct. 529 , 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed. 1972)." Hill v. State , 507 So.2d 554 , 555 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), cert. denied, 507 So.2d 558 (Ala. 1987), concerned the admissibility of evidence of the "battered wife syndrome." In his concurrence in Hill , with which the Alabama Supreme Court agreed, Judge Bowen stated that expert opinion testimony on the battered wife syndrome m 1992Adams v. State , 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); Prewitt v. State , 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Dyas v. United States , 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973 , 98 S.Ct. 529 , 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed. 1972)." Hill v. State , 507 So.2d 554 , 555 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), cert. denied, 507 So.2d 558 (Ala. 1987), concerned the admissibility of evidence of the "battered wife syndrome." In his concurrence in Hill , with which the Alabama Supreme Court agreed, Judge Bowen stated that expert opinion testimony on the battered wife syndrome m | 2 | 1987–1992 |
| Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Townsend v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2017The trial court understood this distinction when it analyzed the nature of Wallingford's testimony. 16 Based on its understanding *185 of this distinction, the trial court concluded that Wallingford's testimony that the subject Mazda3 contained a design defect that caused the post-collision fire was based upon his technical knowledge and long experience in the automotive industry, not upon a scientific theory or principle. " ' "[W]hether a particular witness will be allowed to testify as an expert is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision will not be disturbed on appea 2017The trial court understood this distinction when it analyzed the nature of Wallingford's testimony. 16 Based on its understanding *185 of this distinction, the trial court concluded that Wallingford's testimony that the subject Mazda3 contained a design defect that caused the post-collision fire was based upon his technical knowledge and long experience in the automotive industry, not upon a scientific theory or principle. " ' "[W]hether a particular witness will be allowed to testify as an expert is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision will not be disturbed on appea | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ammons v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017The trial court understood this distinction when it analyzed the nature of Wallingford's testimony. 16 Based on its understanding *185 of this distinction, the trial court concluded that Wallingford's testimony that the subject Mazda3 contained a design defect that caused the post-collision fire was based upon his technical knowledge and long experience in the automotive industry, not upon a scientific theory or principle. " ' "[W]hether a particular witness will be allowed to testify as an expert is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision will not be disturbed on appea 2017The trial court understood this distinction when it analyzed the nature of Wallingford's testimony. 16 Based on its understanding *185 of this distinction, the trial court concluded that Wallingford's testimony that the subject Mazda3 contained a design defect that caused the post-collision fire was based upon his technical knowledge and long experience in the automotive industry, not upon a scientific theory or principle. " ' "[W]hether a particular witness will be allowed to testify as an expert is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision will not be disturbed on appea | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Clemons v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Ex Parte Clemons green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Baker v. Merry-Go-Round Roller Rink, Inc. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Robinson v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Seewar v. Town of Summerdale green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Bullard green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Castro green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Wesley green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Superior Court green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Rock v. Arkansas green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Johnson v. State green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Bundy v. Florida green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Thomas green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| United States v. Charles green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| State v. Collins green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| People v. Gonzales green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.