Daubert standard in North Carolina

2016Whatever this Court’s reservations about the Daubert standard were, see Howerton, 358 N.C. at 464-69 , 597 S.E.2d at 690-93 , the General Assembly has made it clear that North Carolina is now a Daubert state.

2016Whatever this Court’s reservations about the Daubert standard were, see Howerton, 358 N.C. at 464-69 , 597 S.E.2d at 690-93 , the General Assembly has made it clear that North Carolina is now a Daubert state.

2016McGrady , 368 N.C. at 884 -85 , 787 S.E.2d at 5-6 (citing Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 528 U.S. 440 , 455, 120 S.Ct. 1011 , 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) ). 2 "Federal courts traditionally grant a great deal of discretion to the trial court in determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert ." State v. Turbyfill , --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 776 S.E.2d 249 , 253 (citations and quotation marks omitted), review denied , 368 N.C. 603 , 780 S.E.2d 560 (2015). 3 A previous panel of this Court set out the Daubert factors a trial court may consider in determining whether scientific testimony was re

2016McGrady , 368 N.C. at 884 -85 , 787 S.E.2d at 5-6 (citing Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 528 U.S. 440 , 455, 120 S.Ct. 1011 , 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) ). 2 "Federal courts traditionally grant a great deal of discretion to the trial court in determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert ." State v. Turbyfill , --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 776 S.E.2d 249 , 253 (citations and quotation marks omitted), review denied , 368 N.C. 603 , 780 S.E.2d 560 (2015). 3 A previous panel of this Court set out the Daubert factors a trial court may consider in determining whether scientific testimony was re

2017App. ----, 797 S.E.2d 359 (2017), we hold that the expert's testimony was inadmissible under the Daubert standard that applies to Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence. *447 "Although retrograde extrapolation testimony often will satisfy the Daubert test, in this case the testimony failed Daubert 's 'fit' test because the expert's otherwise reliable analysis was not properly tied to the facts of this particular case." Id. at ----, 797 S.E.2d at 360 ; see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (holding that "helpfulness" standard for ad

2017App. ----, 797 S.E.2d 359 (2017), we hold that the expert's testimony was inadmissible under the Daubert standard that applies to Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence. *447 "Although retrograde extrapolation testimony often will satisfy the Daubert test, in this case the testimony failed Daubert 's 'fit' test because the expert's otherwise reliable analysis was not properly tied to the facts of this particular case." Id. at ----, 797 S.E.2d at 360 ; see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (holding that "helpfulness" standard for ad

2016See In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, 292 F.3d 1124 , 1138-39, (9th Cir.2002) ; United States v. Glover, 479 F.3d 511 , 517 (7th Cir.2007) ; Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1 , 5 (1st Cir.1995) ("[W]e assume that the [trial] court performs [the Daubert ] analysis sub silentio throughout the trial with respect to all expert testimony."); United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir.1993) ; United States v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 690 , 697 (6th Cir.2007).

2016See In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, 292 F.3d 1124 , 1138-39, (9th Cir.2002) ; United States v. Glover, 479 F.3d 511 , 517 (7th Cir.2007) ; Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1 , 5 (1st Cir.1995) ("[W]e assume that the [trial] court performs [the Daubert ] analysis sub silentio throughout the trial with respect to all expert testimony."); United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir.1993) ; United States v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 690 , 697 (6th Cir.2007).

2016McGrady , 368 N.C. at 884 -85 , 787 S.E.2d at 5-6 (citing Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 528 U.S. 440 , 455, 120 S.Ct. 1011 , 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) ). 2 "Federal courts traditionally grant a great deal of discretion to the trial court in determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert ." State v. Turbyfill , --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 776 S.E.2d 249 , 253 (citations and quotation marks omitted), review denied , 368 N.C. 603 , 780 S.E.2d 560 (2015). 3 A previous panel of this Court set out the Daubert factors a trial court may consider in determining whether scientific testimony was re

2016McGrady , 368 N.C. at 884 -85 , 787 S.E.2d at 5-6 (citing Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 528 U.S. 440 , 455, 120 S.Ct. 1011 , 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) ). 2 "Federal courts traditionally grant a great deal of discretion to the trial court in determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert ." State v. Turbyfill , --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 776 S.E.2d 249 , 253 (citations and quotation marks omitted), review denied , 368 N.C. 603 , 780 S.E.2d 560 (2015). 3 A previous panel of this Court set out the Daubert factors a trial court may consider in determining whether scientific testimony was re

2016See In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, 292 F.3d 1124 , 1138-39, (9th Cir.2002) ; United States v. Glover, 479 F.3d 511 , 517 (7th Cir.2007) ; Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1 , 5 (1st Cir.1995) ("[W]e assume that the [trial] court performs [the Daubert ] analysis sub silentio throughout the trial with respect to all expert testimony."); United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir.1993) ; United States v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 690 , 697 (6th Cir.2007).

2016See In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, 292 F.3d 1124 , 1138-39, (9th Cir.2002) ; United States v. Glover, 479 F.3d 511 , 517 (7th Cir.2007) ; Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1 , 5 (1st Cir.1995) ("[W]e assume that the [trial] court performs [the Daubert ] analysis sub silentio throughout the trial with respect to all expert testimony."); United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir.1993) ; United States v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 690 , 697 (6th Cir.2007).

2016"The qualification of a witness to give an opinion as one skilled, or, as it is usually termed, an expert , depends on matters of fact[,] and the question is addressed to the trial judge, with opportunity to the objector to test the experience of the witness by appropriate examination." State v. Smith , 221 N.C. 278 , 288-89, 20 S.E.2d 313 , 319-20 (1942) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

2016"The qualification of a witness to give an opinion as one skilled, or, as it is usually termed, an expert , depends on matters of fact[,] and the question is addressed to the trial judge, with opportunity to the objector to test the experience of the witness by appropriate examination." State v. Smith , 221 N.C. 278 , 288-89, 20 S.E.2d 313 , 319-20 (1942) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

2016"The qualification of a witness to give an opinion as one skilled, or, as it is usually termed, an expert , depends on matters of fact[,] and the question is addressed to the trial judge, with opportunity to the objector to test the experience of the witness by appropriate examination." State v. Smith , 221 N.C. 278 , 288-89, 20 S.E.2d 313 , 319-20 (1942) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

2016"The qualification of a witness to give an opinion as one skilled, or, as it is usually termed, an expert , depends on matters of fact[,] and the question is addressed to the trial judge, with opportunity to the objector to test the experience of the witness by appropriate examination." State v. Smith , 221 N.C. 278 , 288-89, 20 S.E.2d 313 , 319-20 (1942) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

2016See In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, 292 F.3d 1124 , 1138-39, (9th Cir.2002) ; United States v. Glover, 479 F.3d 511 , 517 (7th Cir.2007) ; Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1 , 5 (1st Cir.1995) ("[W]e assume that the [trial] court performs [the Daubert ] analysis sub silentio throughout the trial with respect to all expert testimony."); United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir.1993) ; United States v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 690 , 697 (6th Cir.2007).

2016See In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, 292 F.3d 1124 , 1138-39, (9th Cir.2002) ; United States v. Glover, 479 F.3d 511 , 517 (7th Cir.2007) ; Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1 , 5 (1st Cir.1995) ("[W]e assume that the [trial] court performs [the Daubert ] analysis sub silentio throughout the trial with respect to all expert testimony."); United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir.1993) ; United States v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 690 , 697 (6th Cir.2007).

2016See In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, 292 F.3d 1124 , 1138-39, (9th Cir.2002) ; United States v. Glover, 479 F.3d 511 , 517 (7th Cir.2007) ; Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1 , 5 (1st Cir.1995) ("[W]e assume that the [trial] court performs [the Daubert ] analysis sub silentio throughout the trial with respect to all expert testimony."); United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir.1993) ; United States v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 690 , 697 (6th Cir.2007).

2016See In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, 292 F.3d 1124 , 1138-39, (9th Cir.2002) ; United States v. Glover, 479 F.3d 511 , 517 (7th Cir.2007) ; Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1 , 5 (1st Cir.1995) ("[W]e assume that the [trial] court performs [the Daubert ] analysis sub silentio throughout the trial with respect to all expert testimony."); United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924 (2d Cir.1993) ; United States v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 690 , 697 (6th Cir.2007).

2016McGrady , 368 N.C. at 884 -85 , 787 S.E.2d at 5-6 (citing Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 528 U.S. 440 , 455, 120 S.Ct. 1011 , 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) ). 2 "Federal courts traditionally grant a great deal of discretion to the trial court in determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert ." State v. Turbyfill , --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 776 S.E.2d 249 , 253 (citations and quotation marks omitted), review denied , 368 N.C. 603 , 780 S.E.2d 560 (2015). 3 A previous panel of this Court set out the Daubert factors a trial court may consider in determining whether scientific testimony was re

2016McGrady , 368 N.C. at 884 -85 , 787 S.E.2d at 5-6 (citing Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 528 U.S. 440 , 455, 120 S.Ct. 1011 , 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) ). 2 "Federal courts traditionally grant a great deal of discretion to the trial court in determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert ." State v. Turbyfill , --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 776 S.E.2d 249 , 253 (citations and quotation marks omitted), review denied , 368 N.C. 603 , 780 S.E.2d 560 (2015). 3 A previous panel of this Court set out the Daubert factors a trial court may consider in determining whether scientific testimony was re

2016McGrady , 368 N.C. at 884 -85 , 787 S.E.2d at 5-6 (citing Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 528 U.S. 440 , 455, 120 S.Ct. 1011 , 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) ). 2 "Federal courts traditionally grant a great deal of discretion to the trial court in determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert ." State v. Turbyfill , --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 776 S.E.2d 249 , 253 (citations and quotation marks omitted), review denied , 368 N.C. 603 , 780 S.E.2d 560 (2015). 3 A previous panel of this Court set out the Daubert factors a trial court may consider in determining whether scientific testimony was re

2016McGrady , 368 N.C. at 884 -85 , 787 S.E.2d at 5-6 (citing Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 528 U.S. 440 , 455, 120 S.Ct. 1011 , 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) ). 2 "Federal courts traditionally grant a great deal of discretion to the trial court in determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert ." State v. Turbyfill , --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 776 S.E.2d 249 , 253 (citations and quotation marks omitted), review denied , 368 N.C. 603 , 780 S.E.2d 560 (2015). 3 A previous panel of this Court set out the Daubert factors a trial court may consider in determining whether scientific testimony was re

2015We reiterate that the test of reliability is flexible and the Daubert factors "do not constitute a 'definitive checklist or test,' but may be tailored to the facts of a particular case." Kumho Tire Co., 526 U.S. at 150 , 119 S.Ct. at 1175 , 143 L.Ed.2d at 251 . "[O]nce the trial court makes a preliminary determination that the scientific or technical area underlying a qualified expert's opinion is sufficiently reliable (and, of course, relevant), any lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the expert's conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibi

2015We reiterate that the test of reliability is flexible and the Daubert factors "do not constitute a 'definitive checklist or test,' but may be tailored to the facts of a particular case." Kumho Tire Co., 526 U.S. at 150 , 119 S.Ct. at 1175 , 143 L.Ed.2d at 251 . "[O]nce the trial court makes a preliminary determination that the scientific or technical area underlying a qualified expert's opinion is sufficiently reliable (and, of course, relevant), any lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the expert's conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibi

2004See id. ; see also State v. Pennington, 327 N.C. 89, 98 , 393 S.E.2d 847, 852 (1990) ("A new scientific method of proof is admissible at trial if the method is sufficiently reliable."); Bullard, 312 N.C. at 149-53 , 322 S.E.2d at 381-84 , (discussing factors relevant in determining whether scientific methods in their infancy are reliable); State v. Crowder, 285 N.C. 42, 53 , 203 S.E.2d 38, 46 (1974) (expert testimony based on scientific tests "competent only when shown to be reliable"), vacated in part on other grounds, *687 428 U.S. 903 , 96 S.Ct. 3205 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1207 (1976).

2004See id. ; see also State v. Pennington, 327 N.C. 89, 98 , 393 S.E.2d 847, 852 (1990) ("A new scientific method of proof is admissible at trial if the method is sufficiently reliable."); Bullard, 312 N.C. at 149-53 , 322 S.E.2d at 381-84 , (discussing factors relevant in determining whether scientific methods in their infancy are reliable); State v. Crowder, 285 N.C. 42, 53 , 203 S.E.2d 38, 46 (1974) (expert testimony based on scientific tests "competent only when shown to be reliable"), vacated in part on other grounds, *687 428 U.S. 903 , 96 S.Ct. 3205 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1207 (1976).