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.
20 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences1991To support an expert opinion, a scientific principle must be “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Alsbach v. Bader, 700 S.W.2d 823, 828 (Mo. banc 1985), citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). 1990Alsbach v. Bader, 700 S.W.2d 823 (Mo. banc 1985) l.c. 828; State v. Onken, supra. As stated in Frye, supra, l.c. 1014: “... while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Scientifically accepted principles are those which have proven to have wide following in the relevant scientific community to the point where, although possibly still controversial, the great | 4 | 7 |
State v. Stoutgreen2 sentences2007State v. Stout, 478 S.W.2d 368, 371-72 (Mo.1972). 1997State v. Stout, 478 S.W.2d 368 (Mo.1972). | 1 | 3 |
Alsbach v. Badergreen2 sentences1991To support an expert opinion, a scientific principle must be “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Alsbach v. Bader, 700 S.W.2d 823, 828 (Mo. banc 1985), citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). 1990Alsbach v. Bader, 700 S.W.2d 823 (Mo. banc 1985) l.c. 828; State v. Onken, supra. As stated in Frye, supra, l.c. 1014: “... while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Scientifically accepted principles are those which have proven to have wide following in the relevant scientific community to the point where, although possibly still controversial, the great | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sagergreen2 sentences1987State v. Sager, 600 S.W.2d 541, 562 (Mo.App.1980). 1980Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” While this rule has been criticized, McCormick on Evidence § 203, p. 488, it is the standard that has been to this date accepted in Missouri, State v. Sager, 600 S.W.2d 541 (Mo.App.1980); State v. Stout, 478 S.W.2d 368 (Mo.1 | 1 | 2 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1983State v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 493 (Mo.App.1976). 1983The record clearly supports the trial court’s admission of the gunshot residue evidence as expert testimony based on a scientific principle generally accepted as reliable. 1 “Objections to the manner in which the analysis was conducted go to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence.” State v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d at 501 . | 1 | 2 |
Schreibman v. Zanettigreen1 sentence2002The standard for the admissibility of expert opinion testimony is set forth in § 490.065.3, which provides that “[t]he facts or data in a particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference ... must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reasonably reliable.” “To satisfy the statute, a litigant must establish that experts within a specialized area customarily and reasonably rely on the facts or data on which the testifying expert is relying for his or her opinion and that the facts or d | 1 | 1 |
Imms v. Clarkegreen1 sentence1990Imms v. Clarke, 654 S.W.2d 281, 284 (Mo.App.1983); citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Valli v. Valligreen1 sentence1986State v. Young, 668 S.W.2d 263, 265, 266 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stevensgreen2 sentences1972Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” In State v. Stevens, Mo.Sup., 467 S.W.2d 10, 22-24 (1971), this Court discussed the process of neutron activation analysis and affirmed a conviction involving its use to identify samples of hair. 1972Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” In State v. Stevens, Mo.Sup., 467 S.W.2d 10, 22-24 (1971), this Court discussed the process of neutron activation analysis and affirmed a conviction involving its use to identify samples of hair. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences1996Defendant fails to understand the admissibility of DNA evidence in trial courts of this state. “[E]xpert opinions based on scientific tests are admissible if the scientific principle involved is generally considered by the scientific community as reliable.” State v. Williams, 659 S.W.2d 309 (Mo.App.1983). 1985It is the general rule that “[Ejxpert opinions based on scientific tests are admissible if the scientific principle involved is generally considered by the scientific community as reliable.” State v. Williams, 659 S.W.2d 309 (Mo.App.1983). | 2 | 1985–1996 |
State of Missouri v. Christopher Pickering
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Duffy v. Director of Revenue
green
1 sentence2015"Obviously, a scientific test as to intoxication, which is improperly administered ..., does not tend to prove intoxication under a probable cause or reasonable doubt standard.” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Friend
green
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Meanor
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 887-88 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1990State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 , l.c. 171, 199 A.2d 809 , l.c. 823 (1964) [14]. 1990State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 , l.c. 171, 199 A.2d 809 , l.c. 823 (1964) [14]. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Commonwealth v. Nazarovitch
green
2 sentences1985Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Id. 293 F. at 1014 . 1985Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Id. 293 F. at 1014 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Kinealy v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
green
1 sentence1970For example in the cited case of Kinealy v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Mo., 368 S.W.2d 400 , an action for damages from ditching operations, a geologist testified “in generalities as to the scientific factors” causing landslides. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Moore
neutral
1 sentence1915The correct rule concerning the admissibility of such evidence is stated in Wharton on Homicide (3 Eel.), par. 611, page 948, as follows: ‘‘To render bloodstained clothing admissible in evidence in snch cases, however, its identity must be established, and it must appear that it had not been interfered with, either purposely or otherwise.” To the same effect are the following authorities: State v. McAnarney, 70 Kan. 679 , l. c. 689; State v. Hossack, 116 Iowa, 194 , l. c. 203; State v. Craft, 118 La. 117 ; State v. Moore, 168 Mo. 432 , l. c. 443; 6 Ency. of Evidence, 671. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
State v. McAnarney
neutral
1 sentence1915The correct rule concerning the admissibility of such evidence is stated in Wharton on Homicide (3 Eel.), par. 611, page 948, as follows: ‘‘To render bloodstained clothing admissible in evidence in snch cases, however, its identity must be established, and it must appear that it had not been interfered with, either purposely or otherwise.” To the same effect are the following authorities: State v. McAnarney, 70 Kan. 679 , l. c. 689; State v. Hossack, 116 Iowa, 194 , l. c. 203; State v. Craft, 118 La. 117 ; State v. Moore, 168 Mo. 432 , l. c. 443; 6 Ency. of Evidence, 671. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
State v. Craft
green
1 sentence1915The correct rule concerning the admissibility of such evidence is stated in Wharton on Homicide (3 Eel.), par. 611, page 948, as follows: ‘‘To render bloodstained clothing admissible in evidence in snch cases, however, its identity must be established, and it must appear that it had not been interfered with, either purposely or otherwise.” To the same effect are the following authorities: State v. McAnarney, 70 Kan. 679 , l. c. 689; State v. Hossack, 116 Iowa, 194 , l. c. 203; State v. Craft, 118 La. 117 ; State v. Moore, 168 Mo. 432 , l. c. 443; 6 Ency. of Evidence, 671. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
State v. Hossack
green
1 sentence1915The correct rule concerning the admissibility of such evidence is stated in Wharton on Homicide (3 Eel.), par. 611, page 948, as follows: ‘‘To render bloodstained clothing admissible in evidence in snch cases, however, its identity must be established, and it must appear that it had not been interfered with, either purposely or otherwise.” To the same effect are the following authorities: State v. McAnarney, 70 Kan. 679 , l. c. 689; State v. Hossack, 116 Iowa, 194 , l. c. 203; State v. Craft, 118 La. 117 ; State v. Moore, 168 Mo. 432 , l. c. 443; 6 Ency. of Evidence, 671. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.