Frye test in Colorado

30 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Colorado 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.

Followed or applied (46)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Hamptongreen colo · 1987 · cited in 10 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1987–2017 2 sentences 1999In People v. Hampton, 746 P.2d 947, 950 (Colo.1987), we took up the issue more directly, concluding that CRE 702, and not Frye , governed the admissibility of expert testimony on developing theories pertaining to “rape trauma syndrome.” We noted that the specialized review epitomized by Frye was proper only in a particular type of case: Generally, the Frye test is applied to novel scientific devices and processes involving the manipulation of physical evidence including lie detectors, experimental systems of blood typing, voieeprints, identification of human bite marks, and microscopic analysi 1999In People v. Hampton, 746 P.2d 947, 950 (Colo.1987), we took up the issue more directly, concluding that CRE 702, and not Frye , governed the admissibility of expert testimony on developing theories pertaining to “rape trauma syndrome.” We noted that the specialized review epitomized by Frye was proper only in a particular type of case: Generally, the Frye test is applied to novel scientific devices and processes involving the manipulation of physical evidence including lie detectors, experimental systems of blood typing, voieeprints, identification of human bite marks, and microscopic analysi	5	10
Campbell v. Peoplegreen colo · 1991 · cited in 8 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1991–2000 2 sentences 1994However, in Campbell v. People, 814 P.2d 1 (Colo.1991), our supreme court stated that the Frye standard of general acceptance within any particular scientific field was limited to those situations involving novel scientific devices or processes involving the evaluation of physical evidence. 1994However, in Campbell v. People, 814 P.2d 1 (Colo.1991), our supreme court stated that the Frye standard of general acceptance within any particular scientific field was limited to those situations involving novel scientific devices or processes involving the evaluation of physical evidence.	5	8
Fishback v. Peoplegreen colo · 1993 · cited in 7 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1993–2001 2 sentences 2001Applying the Frye standard as adopted in Colorado by People v. Anderson, 637 P.2d 354, 358 (Colo.1981), and as explained in Lindsey v. People, 892 P.2d 281, 288-89 (Colo.1995), and Fishback v. People, 851 P.2d 884, 890 (Colo.1993), the trial court held that admissibility of the DNA evidence at issue required a showing that the technologies and methods used were generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. 2001Applying the Frye standard as adopted in Colorado by People v. Anderson, 637 P.2d 354, 358 (Colo.1981), and as explained in Lindsey v. People, 892 P.2d 281, 288-89 (Colo.1995), and Fishback v. People, 851 P.2d 884, 890 (Colo.1993), the trial court held that admissibility of the DNA evidence at issue required a showing that the technologies and methods used were generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.	5	7
People v. Andersongreen colo · 1981 · cited in 14 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1982–2004 2 sentences 2004The trial court held that pursuant to People v. Anderson, 637 P.2d 354 (Colo.1981), polygraph evidence is inadmissible as unreliable under the Frye test. 2004The trial court held that pursuant to People v. Anderson, 637 P.2d 354 (Colo.1981), polygraph evidence is inadmissible as unreliable under the Frye test.	3	14
Frye v. United Statesred cadc · 1923 · cited in 8 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1985–2021 2 sentences 2021To get there, the court first rejected the so-called Frye test (derived from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. 2021To get there, the court first rejected the so-called Frye test (derived from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.	2	8
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green scotus · 1993 · cited in 7 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1993–2021 2 sentences 2017In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Frye test was superseded by Fed. 2017In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Frye test was superseded by Fed.	2	7
Lindsey v. Peoplegreen colo · 1995 · cited in 3 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1997–2001 2 sentences 2001Applying the Frye standard as adopted in Colorado by People v. Anderson, 637 P.2d 354, 358 (Colo.1981), and as explained in Lindsey v. People, 892 P.2d 281, 288-89 (Colo.1995), and Fishback v. People, 851 P.2d 884, 890 (Colo.1993), the trial court held that admissibility of the DNA evidence at issue required a showing that the technologies and methods used were generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. 2001Applying the Frye standard as adopted in Colorado by People v. Anderson, 637 P.2d 354, 358 (Colo.1981), and as explained in Lindsey v. People, 892 P.2d 281, 288-89 (Colo.1995), and Fishback v. People, 851 P.2d 884, 890 (Colo.1993), the trial court held that admissibility of the DNA evidence at issue required a showing that the technologies and methods used were generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.	2	3
United States v. John W. Downinggreen ca3 · 1985 · cited in 3 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1993–2001 2 sentences 2001Conversely, because it will take time for any scientific technique to become generally accepted, the Frye test restricts the admissibility of reliable evidence that may not yet qualify as "generally accepted" under Frye Brooks, 975 P.2d at 1112 (noting that Frye fails to "address the tough questions that arise on the cutting edge of science, [in that it] requires that the courts wait until science itself determines the validity of the scientific proposition in ques 77 tion."); Downing, 753 F.2d at 1236-37 ; Petrosinelli, supra, at 320 (describing this problem with the Frye test as a "cultural 2001Conversely, because it will take time for any scientific technique to become generally accepted, the Frye test restricts the admissibility of reliable evidence that may not yet qualify as "generally accepted" under Frye Brooks, 975 P.2d at 1112 (noting that Frye fails to "address the tough questions that arise on the cutting edge of science, [in that it] requires that the courts wait until science itself determines the validity of the scientific proposition in ques 77 tion."); Downing, 753 F.2d at 1236-37 ; Petrosinelli, supra, at 320 (describing this problem with the Frye test as a "cultural	2	3
People v. Romerogreen colo · 1987 · cited in 3 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1987–1999 2 sentences 1999In People v. Romero, we adopted a case by case approach for considering the reliability, and thus, the admissibility of testimony from witnesses who had been hypnotized. 745 P.2d 1003, 1016 (Colo.1987) Our decision expressly overruled an earlier court of appeals opinion, People v. Quintanar, 659 P.2d 710 (Colo.App.1982), that had relied on the Frye test to adopt a per se rule excluding such evidence. 1999In People v. Romero, we adopted a case by case approach for considering the reliability, and thus, the admissibility of testimony from witnesses who had been hypnotized. 745 P.2d 1003, 1016 (Colo.1987) Our decision expressly overruled an earlier court of appeals opinion, People v. Quintanar, 659 P.2d 710 (Colo.App.1982), that had relied on the Frye test to adopt a per se rule excluding such evidence.	2	3
United States v. Horngreen mdd · 2002 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 1994) (HGN test results admissible under Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 702; applying Daubert-like test); see also United States v. Horn, 185 F. Supp. 2d 530, 561 (D. 2020App. 1994) (HGN test results admissible under Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 702; applying Daubert-like test); see also United States v. Horn, 185 F. Supp. 2d 530, 561 (D.	2	2
State v. Dahoodgreen nh · 2002 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 1995) (courts may take judicial notice of the results of an HGN test); State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577, 584-86 (Minn. 1994) (HGN test results satisfied Frye test); State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 703-04 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (HGN test satisfies Frye test if offered as evidence of intoxication), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. 1997); Baue, 607 N.W.2d at 201-04 (HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment under Frye test); Dahood, 814 A.2d at 166-67 (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); State v. Aleman, 194 P.3d 110, 115-16 (N.M. 2020App. 1995) (courts may take judicial notice of the results of an HGN test); State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577, 584-86 (Minn. 1994) (HGN test results satisfied Frye test); State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 703-04 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (HGN test satisfies Frye test if offered as evidence of intoxication), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. 1997); Baue, 607 N.W.2d at 201 -04 22 (HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment under Frye test); Dahood, 814 A.2d at 166-67 (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); State v. Aleman, 194 P.3d 110, 115-16 (N.M.	2	2
State v. Alemangreen nmctapp · 2008 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 1995) (courts may take judicial notice of the results of an HGN test); State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577, 584-86 (Minn. 1994) (HGN test results satisfied Frye test); State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 703-04 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (HGN test satisfies Frye test if offered as evidence of intoxication), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. 1997); Baue, 607 N.W.2d at 201-04 (HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment under Frye test); Dahood, 814 A.2d at 166-67 (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); State v. Aleman, 194 P.3d 110, 115-16 (N.M. 2020App. 1995) (courts may take judicial notice of the results of an HGN test); State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577, 584-86 (Minn. 1994) (HGN test results satisfied Frye test); State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 703-04 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (HGN test satisfies Frye test if offered as evidence of intoxication), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. 1997); Baue, 607 N.W.2d at 201 -04 22 (HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment under Frye test); Dahood, 814 A.2d at 166-67 (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); State v. Aleman, 194 P.3d 110, 115-16 (N.M.	2	2
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Raineygreen scotus · 1988 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021Id. at 76-77. ¶ 27 The Shreck court also discussed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which likewise rejected Frye, holding that its “rigid general acceptance requirement [is] at odds with the ‘liberal 16 thrust’ of the Federal Rules [of Evidence] and their ‘general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to opinion testimony.’” Id. at 588 (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 169 (1988)). 2021Id. at 76-77. ¶ 27 The Shreck court also discussed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which likewise rejected Frye, holding that its “rigid general acceptance requirement [is] at odds with the ‘liberal 16 thrust’ of the Federal Rules [of Evidence] and their ‘general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to opinion testimony.’” Id. at 588 (quoting Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 169 (1988)).	2	2
State v. O'Keygreen or · 1995 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021Ct. App. 2008) (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); City of Fargo v. McLaughlin, 512 N.W.2d 700, 703-08 (N.D. 1994) (HGN test results admissible under Frye test if offered in conjunction with other field sobriety tests); State v. O’Key, 899 P.2d 663, 689 (Or. 1995) (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759, 763-69 (Tex. Crim. 2020Ct. App. 2008) (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); City of Fargo v. McLaughlin, 512 N.W.2d 700, 703-08 (N.D. 1994) (HGN test results admissible under Frye test if offered in conjunction with other field sobriety tests); State v. O’Key, 899 P.2d 663, 689 (Or. 1995) (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759, 763-69 (Tex. Crim.	2	2
State v. Comminsgreen connappct · 2004 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021Hamilton v. City Ct., 799 P.2d 855, 859 (Ariz. 1990) (HGN test satisfies the Frye standard if offered only as evidence of impairment); State v. Commins, 850 A.2d 1074, 1080-81 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004) (HGN test evidence satisfied Daubert test), aff’d on other grounds, 886 A.2d 824 (Conn. 2005); Ruthardt, 680 A.2d at 356-60 (applying Shreck-like test; HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment); Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 24, 30-32 (Fla. Dist. 2021Hamilton v. City Ct., 799 P.2d 855, 859 (Ariz. 1990) (HGN test satisfies the Frye standard if offered only as evidence of impairment); State v. Commins, 850 A.2d 1074, 1080-81 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004) (HGN test evidence satisfied Daubert test), aff’d on other grounds, 886 A.2d 824 (Conn. 2005); Ruthardt, 680 A.2d at 356-60 (applying Shreck-like test; HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment); Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 24, 30-32 (Fla. Dist.	2	2
Schultz v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1995 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021Ct. App. 1998) (the HGN test is a reliable indicator of the presence of alcohol in blood, and there is no need for trial courts to reapply a Frye analysis to HGN); Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 806-08 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (HGN test results admissible without expert testimony regarding the scientific validity of the test; applying a Shreck-like totality of the circumstances test); State v. Gleason, 844 P.2d 691, 694-95 (Idaho 1992) (HGN testimony admissible under Frye test as evidence of impairment); State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907, 911-12 (Me. 1997) (applying Frye 23 test; HGN test results ad 2021Ct. App. 1998) (the HGN test is a reliable indicator of the presence of alcohol in blood, and there is no need for trial courts to reapply a Frye analysis to HGN); Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 806-08 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (HGN test results admissible without expert testimony regarding the scientific validity of the test; applying a Shreck-like totality of the circumstances test); State v. Gleason, 844 P.2d 691, 694-95 (Idaho 1992) (HGN testimony admissible under Frye test as evidence of impairment); State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907, 911-12 (Me. 1997) (applying Frye 23 test; HGN test results ad	2	2
Emerson v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1994 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021Ct. App. 2008) (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); City of Fargo v. McLaughlin, 512 N.W.2d 700, 703-08 (N.D. 1994) (HGN test results admissible under Frye test if offered in conjunction with other field sobriety tests); State v. O’Key, 899 P.2d 663, 689 (Or. 1995) (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759, 763-69 (Tex. Crim. 2020Ct. App. 2008) (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); City of Fargo v. McLaughlin, 512 N.W.2d 700, 703-08 (N.D. 1994) (HGN test results admissible under Frye test if offered in conjunction with other field sobriety tests); State v. O’Key, 899 P.2d 663, 689 (Or. 1995) (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759, 763-69 (Tex. Crim.	2	2
Ballard v. Stategreen alaskactapp · 1998 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021See, e.g., Ballard v. State, 955 P.2d 931, 940 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998) (HGN evidence meets Frye test if results are offered to show a person has consumed alcohol and is potentially impaired), overruled on other grounds as recognized by Alvarez v. State, 249 P.3d 286 (Alaska 2011); State ex rel. 2020See, e.g., Ballard v. State, 955 P.2d 931, 940 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998) (HGN evidence meets Frye test if results are offered to show a person has consumed alcohol and is potentially impaired), overruled on other grounds as recognized by Alvarez v. State, 249 P.3d 286 (Alaska 2011); State v. City Court, 799 P.2d 855, 859 (Ariz. 1990) (HGN test satisfies the Frye standard if offered only as evidence of impairment); State v. Commins, 850 A.2d 1074, 1080-81 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004) (HGN test evidence satisfied Daubert test), 4 As noted above, the prosecution cited several trial court decisions admittin	2	2
City of Fargo v. McLaughlingreen nd · 1994 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021Ct. App. 2008) (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); City of Fargo v. McLaughlin, 512 N.W.2d 700, 703-08 (N.D. 1994) (HGN test results admissible under Frye test if offered in conjunction with other field sobriety tests); State v. O’Key, 899 P.2d 663, 689 (Or. 1995) (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759, 763-69 (Tex. Crim. 2020Ct. App. 2008) (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); City of Fargo v. McLaughlin, 512 N.W.2d 700, 703-08 (N.D. 1994) (HGN test results admissible under Frye test if offered in conjunction with other field sobriety tests); State v. O’Key, 899 P.2d 663, 689 (Or. 1995) (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759, 763-69 (Tex. Crim.	2	2
State v. Gleasongreen idaho · 1992 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021	2	2
State v. Taylorgreen me · 1997 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021Ct. App. 1998) (the HGN test is a reliable indicator of the presence of alcohol in blood, and there is no need for trial courts to reapply a Frye analysis to HGN); Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 806-08 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (HGN test results admissible without expert testimony regarding the scientific validity of the test; applying a Shreck-like totality of the circumstances test); State v. Gleason, 844 P.2d 691, 694-95 (Idaho 1992) (HGN testimony admissible under Frye test as evidence of impairment); State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907, 911-12 (Me. 1997) (applying Frye 23 test; HGN test results ad 2021Ct. App. 1998) (the HGN test is a reliable indicator of the presence of alcohol in blood, and there is no need for trial courts to reapply a Frye analysis to HGN); Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 806-08 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (HGN test results admissible without expert testimony regarding the scientific validity of the test; applying a Shreck-like totality of the circumstances test); State v. Gleason, 844 P.2d 691, 694-95 (Idaho 1992) (HGN testimony admissible under Frye test as evidence of impairment); State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907, 911-12 (Me. 1997) (applying Frye 23 test; HGN test results ad	2	2
State v. Hillgreen moctapp · 1993 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021	2	2
State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. City Court of City of Mesagreen ariz · 1990 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021	2	2
Hawkins v. Stategreen gactapp · 1996 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021	2	2
State v. Klawittergreen minn · 1994 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 1995) (courts may take judicial notice of the results of an HGN test); State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577, 584-86 (Minn. 1994) (HGN test results satisfied Frye test); State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 703-04 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (HGN test satisfies Frye test if offered as evidence of intoxication), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. 1997); Baue, 607 N.W.2d at 201-04 (HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment under Frye test); Dahood, 814 A.2d at 166-67 (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); State v. Aleman, 194 P.3d 110, 115-16 (N.M. 2020App. 1995) (courts may take judicial notice of the results of an HGN test); State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577, 584-86 (Minn. 1994) (HGN test results satisfied Frye test); State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 703-04 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (HGN test satisfies Frye test if offered as evidence of intoxication), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. 1997); Baue, 607 N.W.2d at 201 -04 22 (HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment under Frye test); Dahood, 814 A.2d at 166-67 (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); State v. Aleman, 194 P.3d 110, 115-16 (N.M.	2	2
Williams v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1998 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021Hamilton v. City Ct., 799 P.2d 855, 859 (Ariz. 1990) (HGN test satisfies the Frye standard if offered only as evidence of impairment); State v. Commins, 850 A.2d 1074, 1080-81 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004) (HGN test evidence satisfied Daubert test), aff’d on other grounds, 886 A.2d 824 (Conn. 2005); Ruthardt, 680 A.2d at 356-60 (applying Shreck-like test; HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment); Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 24, 30-32 (Fla. Dist. 2021Hamilton v. City Ct., 799 P.2d 855, 859 (Ariz. 1990) (HGN test satisfies the Frye standard if offered only as evidence of impairment); State v. Commins, 850 A.2d 1074, 1080-81 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004) (HGN test evidence satisfied Daubert test), aff’d on other grounds, 886 A.2d 824 (Conn. 2005); Ruthardt, 680 A.2d at 356-60 (applying Shreck-like test; HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment); Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 24, 30-32 (Fla. Dist.	2	2
Alvarez v. Stategreen alaska · 2011 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021	2	2
Brooks v. Peoplegreen colo · 1999 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2000–2001	2	2
People v. Leahygreen cal · 1994 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1995–2001	2	2
People v. Banksgreen coloctapp · 1990 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1992–1993	2	2
State v. Bauegreen neb · 2000 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021App. 1995) (courts may take judicial notice of the results of an HGN test); State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577, 584-86 (Minn. 1994) (HGN test results satisfied Frye test); State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 703-04 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (HGN test satisfies Frye test if offered as evidence of intoxication), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. 1997); Baue, 607 N.W.2d at 201-04 (HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment under Frye test); Dahood, 814 A.2d at 166-67 (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); State v. Aleman, 194 P.3d 110, 115-16 (N.M. 2020App. 1995) (courts may take judicial notice of the results of an HGN test); State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577, 584-86 (Minn. 1994) (HGN test results satisfied Frye test); State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 703-04 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (HGN test satisfies Frye test if offered as evidence of intoxication), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. 1997); Baue, 607 N.W.2d at 201 -04 22 (HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment under Frye test); Dahood, 814 A.2d at 166-67 (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); State v. Aleman, 194 P.3d 110, 115-16 (N.M.	1	2
United States v. Samplegreen paed · 1974 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1993–2001	1	2
Emf v. Nngreen coloctapp · 1985 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1990–1991	1	2
State v. Ruthardtgreen delsuperct · 1996 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020	1	1
People v. Wearegreen coloctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019	1	1
Beaver County v. Utah State Tax Commissiongreen utah · 1996 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000	1	1
State v. Albericogreen nm · 1993 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1
State v. Biblegreen ariz · 1993 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1
State v. Albericogreen nm · 1993 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1
People v. Wesleygreen nycountyct · 1988 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
State v. Coongreen alaska · 1999 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2021 2 sentences 2021Id. at 77-78 . ¶ 29 Before applying the Shreck framework to the testimony at issue in this case, we pause to address Marston’s assertion that 17 Shreck “is widely regarded as imposing a more rigorous ‘gatekeeper’ function on trial courts than Frye did.” (The point matters because, as discussed below, some courts have applied the Frye test in determining HGN test admissibility, and so understanding the relative restrictiveness of the tests will prove informative.) To the extent Marston intends to suggest that the Shreck test is more limiting than the Frye test, he is wrong, for at least two rea 2021Id. at 77-78 . ¶ 29 Before applying the Shreck framework to the testimony at issue in this case, we pause to address Marston’s assertion that 17 Shreck “is widely regarded as imposing a more rigorous ‘gatekeeper’ function on trial courts than Frye did.” (The point matters because, as discussed below, some courts have applied the Frye test in determining HGN test admissibility, and so understanding the relative restrictiveness of the tests will prove informative.) To the extent Marston intends to suggest that the Shreck test is more limiting than the Frye test, he is wrong, for at least two rea	2	2

Also cited on this issue (33)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Quintanar green coloctapp · 1982 2 sentences 1999In People v. Romero, we adopted a case by case approach for considering the reliability, and thus, the admissibility of testimony from witnesses who had been hypnotized. 745 P.2d 1003, 1016 (Colo.1987) Our decision expressly overruled an earlier court of appeals opinion, People v. Quintanar, 659 P.2d 710 (Colo.App.1982), that had relied on the Frye test to adopt a per se rule excluding such evidence. 1999In People v. Romero, we adopted a case by case approach for considering the reliability, and thus, the admissibility of testimony from witnesses who had been hypnotized. 745 P.2d 1003, 1016 (Colo.1987) Our decision expressly overruled an earlier court of appeals opinion, People v. Quintanar, 659 P.2d 710 (Colo.App.1982), that had relied on the Frye test to adopt a per se rule excluding such evidence.	4	1985–1999
People v. Castro green nysupct · 1989 2 sentences 1995Court of Appeals’ analysis In People v. Lindsey, 868 P.2d 1085 (Colo.App.1993), the court of appeals affirmed, applying a three step analysis adopted in People v. Castro, 144 Misc.2d 956 , 545 N.Y.S.2d 985 (1989). 10 The court first explained Lindsey’s challenge to forensic application of the statistical portion of the evidence required review under the Frye test. 1995Court of Appeals’ analysis In People v. Lindsey, 868 P.2d 1085 (Colo.App.1993), the court of appeals affirmed, applying a three step analysis adopted in People v. Castro, 144 Misc.2d 956 , 545 N.Y.S.2d 985 (1989). 10 The court first explained Lindsey’s challenge to forensic application of the statistical portion of the evidence required review under the Frye test.	4	1992–1995
People v. Shreck green colo · 2001 2 sentences 2021Id. at 77-78 . ¶ 29 Before applying the Shreck framework to the testimony at issue in this case, we pause to address Marston’s assertion that 17 Shreck “is widely regarded as imposing a more rigorous ‘gatekeeper’ function on trial courts than Frye did.” (The point matters because, as discussed below, some courts have applied the Frye test in determining HGN test admissibility, and so understanding the relative restrictiveness of the tests will prove informative.) To the extent Marston intends to suggest that the Shreck test is more limiting than the Frye test, he is wrong, for at least two rea 2021Id. at 77-78 . ¶ 29 Before applying the Shreck framework to the testimony at issue in this case, we pause to address Marston’s assertion that 17 Shreck “is widely regarded as imposing a more rigorous ‘gatekeeper’ function on trial courts than Frye did.” (The point matters because, as discussed below, some courts have applied the Frye test in determining HGN test admissibility, and so understanding the relative restrictiveness of the tests will prove informative.) To the extent Marston intends to suggest that the Shreck test is more limiting than the Frye test, he is wrong, for at least two rea	3	2004–2021
State v. Commins green conn · 2005 2 sentences 2021Hamilton v. City Ct., 799 P.2d 855, 859 (Ariz. 1990) (HGN test satisfies the Frye standard if offered only as evidence of impairment); State v. Commins, 850 A.2d 1074, 1080-81 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004) (HGN test evidence satisfied Daubert test), aff’d on other grounds, 886 A.2d 824 (Conn. 2005); Ruthardt, 680 A.2d at 356-60 (applying Shreck-like test; HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment); Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 24, 30-32 (Fla. Dist. 2021Hamilton v. City Ct., 799 P.2d 855, 859 (Ariz. 1990) (HGN test satisfies the Frye standard if offered only as evidence of impairment); State v. Commins, 850 A.2d 1074, 1080-81 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004) (HGN test evidence satisfied Daubert test), aff’d on other grounds, 886 A.2d 824 (Conn. 2005); Ruthardt, 680 A.2d at 356-60 (applying Shreck-like test; HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment); Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 24, 30-32 (Fla. Dist.	2	2020–2021
State v. Carson green mo · 1997 2 sentences 2021App. 1995) (courts may take judicial notice of the results of an HGN test); State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577, 584-86 (Minn. 1994) (HGN test results satisfied Frye test); State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 703-04 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (HGN test satisfies Frye test if offered as evidence of intoxication), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. 1997); Baue, 607 N.W.2d at 201-04 (HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment under Frye test); Dahood, 814 A.2d at 166-67 (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); State v. Aleman, 194 P.3d 110, 115-16 (N.M. 2020App. 1995) (courts may take judicial notice of the results of an HGN test); State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577, 584-86 (Minn. 1994) (HGN test results satisfied Frye test); State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 703-04 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (HGN test satisfies Frye test if offered as evidence of intoxication), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carson, 941 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. 1997); Baue, 607 N.W.2d at 201 -04 22 (HGN test results admissible as evidence of impairment under Frye test); Dahood, 814 A.2d at 166-67 (HGN test results admissible under Daubert test); State v. Aleman, 194 P.3d 110, 115-16 (N.M.	2	2020–2021
State v. Sharpe green alaska · 2019 2 sentences 2021Id. at 77-78 . ¶ 29 Before applying the Shreck framework to the testimony at issue in this case, we pause to address Marston’s assertion that 17 Shreck “is widely regarded as imposing a more rigorous ‘gatekeeper’ function on trial courts than Frye did.” (The point matters because, as discussed below, some courts have applied the Frye test in determining HGN test admissibility, and so understanding the relative restrictiveness of the tests will prove informative.) To the extent Marston intends to suggest that the Shreck test is more limiting than the Frye test, he is wrong, for at least two rea 2021Id. at 77-78 . ¶ 29 Before applying the Shreck framework to the testimony at issue in this case, we pause to address Marston’s assertion that 17 Shreck “is widely regarded as imposing a more rigorous ‘gatekeeper’ function on trial courts than Frye did.” (The point matters because, as discussed below, some courts have applied the Frye test in determining HGN test admissibility, and so understanding the relative restrictiveness of the tests will prove informative.) To the extent Marston intends to suggest that the Shreck test is more limiting than the Frye test, he is wrong, for at least two rea	2	2020–2021
People v. Gaffney green colo · 1989	2	2017–2017
Andrews v. State green fladistctapp · 1988	2	1993–1995
State v. Schwartz green minn · 1989	2	1993–1994
United States v. Steven John Alexander green ca8 · 1975	2	1985–1985
People v. Beatty green coloctapp · 2003	1	2019–2019
People v. Lee green coloctapp · 1995	1	2019–2019
People v. Martinez green colo · 2003	1	2004–2004
Colwell v. Mentzer Investments, Inc. green coloctapp · 1998	1	2000–2000
People v. Perryman green coloctapp · 1993	1	1998–1998
People v. Wesley green ny · 1994	1	1995–1995
People v. Lindsey green coloctapp · 1994	1	1995–1995
Cobey v. State green mdctspecapp · 1989	1	1995–1995
People v. Fishback green coloctapp · 1992	1	1994–1994
State v. Wimberly green sd · 1991	1	1993–1993
State v. Pennington green · 1990	1	1993–1993
Spencer v. Commonwealth green va · 1990	1	1993–1993
Glover v. State green texcrimapp · 1992	1	1993–1993
cluster 573993 green ca9 · 1991	1	1993–1993
State v. Pennell green delsuperct · 1989	1	1993–1993
Glover v. State green texapp · 1990	1	1993–1993
United States v. Carl Joseph Baller, Jr. green ca4 · 1975	1	1993–1993
State v. Pierce green ohio · 1992	1	1993–1993
New York Stock Exchange v. Thill Securities Corp. green scotus · 1971	1	1993–1993
Stifel v. United States green scotus · 1971	1	1993–1993
State v. Woodall green wva · 1989	1	1993–1993
Hannivig v. Reagan green scotus · 1988	1	1993–1993
Cunningham v. Columbia, Newberry & Laurens Railroad green sc · 1914	1	1993–1993

Where else courts name it

NY 396 (1979–2026) IL 308 (1983–2026) PA 240 (1977–2026) WA 219 (1978–2026) FL 180 (1983–2026) CA 138 (1976–2026) MD 60 (1978–2025) AZ 59 (1982–2016) NJ 52 (1978–2026) KS 48 (1981–2020) MO 47 (1985–2024) TX 38 (1984–2026) MA 33 (1975–2024) AL 32 (1984–2017) CO 30 (1982–2021) MN 29 (1980–2026) CT 29 (1984–2005) NE 25 (1992–2017) MS 25 (1990–2008) AK 23 (1983–2019) DC 23 (1979–2026) MI 22 (1977–2024) OH 19 (1975–2023) VA 17 (1988–2010) IN 17 (1984–2023) SD 15 (1985–2026) WV 14 (1980–2015) DE 10 (1985–2025) NM 10 (1993–2016) KY 10 (1991–2015) TN 10 (1986–2014) WI 10 (1981–2021) ID 10 (1984–2013) GA 9 (1982–2020) NH 9 (1992–2004) IA 8 (1986–2025) AR 8 (1989–1996) UT 8 (1980–2019) OR 7 (1984–2024) LA 7 (1982–2018) RI 7 (1985–2020) WY 6 (1983–2025) VT 6 (1993–2009) HI 6 (1992–2020) NC 6 (1984–2004) OK 6 (1994–2025) MT 6 (1991–2013) SC 5 (1990–2026) ND 4 (1983–2005) ME 3 (1978–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check