Kelly-Frye rule in California

2022Drawing and developing on the Supreme Court’s discussion of “rape trauma syndrome” evidence in People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236 (Bledsoe), the Gray court observed that CSAAS evidence is more akin to expert testimony informing the jury of certain factors that may affect eyewitness identification—which is not subject to the Kelly-Frye test—than to “ ‘scientific evidence . . . derived from an apparently “scientific” mechanism, instrument, or procedure.” (Gray, at p. 219.) Moreover, “ ‘[w]e have never applied the Kelly-Frye rule to expert medical testimony, even 10 when the witness is a psyc

2022Drawing and developing on the Supreme Court’s discussion of “rape trauma syndrome” evidence in People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236 (Bledsoe), the Gray court observed that CSAAS evidence is more akin to expert testimony informing the jury of certain factors that may affect eyewitness identification—which is not subject to the Kelly-Frye test—than to “ ‘scientific evidence . . . derived from an apparently “scientific” mechanism, instrument, or procedure.” (Gray, at p. 219.) Moreover, “ ‘[w]e have never applied the Kelly-Frye rule to expert medical testimony, even 10 when the witness is a psyc

2026Asserted errors under Crawford and Sanchez Before trial commenced in this case, the trial court conducted numerous pretrial hearings relating to the admissibility of certain scientific evidence pursuant to what has become known as the Kelly rule.15 Described in greater detail below, the Kelly rule “provides a framework within which courts can analyze the reliability of expert testimony based on new or novel scientific methods or techniques.” (People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153, 223 (Lucas).) “Expert testimony based on the application of a scientific technique is admissible in California if

2026Asserted errors under Crawford and Sanchez Before trial commenced in this case, the trial court conducted numerous pretrial hearings relating to the admissibility of certain scientific evidence pursuant to what has become known as the Kelly rule.15 Described in greater detail below, the Kelly rule “provides a framework within which courts can analyze the reliability of expert testimony based on new or novel scientific methods or techniques.” (People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153, 223 (Lucas).) “Expert testimony based on the application of a scientific technique is admissible in California if

2022Drawing and developing on the Supreme Court’s discussion of “rape trauma syndrome” evidence in People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236 (Bledsoe), the Gray court observed that CSAAS evidence is more akin to expert testimony informing the jury of certain factors that may affect eyewitness identification—which is not subject to the Kelly-Frye test—than to “ ‘scientific evidence . . . derived from an apparently “scientific” mechanism, instrument, or procedure.” (Gray, at p. 219.) Moreover, “ ‘[w]e have never applied the Kelly-Frye rule to expert medical testimony, even 10 when the witness is a psyc

2022Drawing and developing on the Supreme Court’s discussion of “rape trauma syndrome” evidence in People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236 (Bledsoe), the Gray court observed that CSAAS evidence is more akin to expert testimony informing the jury of certain factors that may affect eyewitness identification—which is not subject to the Kelly-Frye test—than to “ ‘scientific evidence . . . derived from an apparently “scientific” mechanism, instrument, or procedure.” (Gray, at p. 219.) Moreover, “ ‘[w]e have never applied the Kelly-Frye rule to expert medical testimony, even 10 when the witness is a psyc

2026Although the rule was “[f]ormerly known as the Kelly-Frye rule, . . . the rule is now the Kelly rule in California after changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence that superseded Frye.” (People v. Nieves (2021) 11 Cal.5th 404, 442, fn. 8 .) 15 admitting [the challenged evidence], there was no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights” arising from the admission of the evidence].) Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

2026Although the rule was “[f]ormerly known as the Kelly-Frye rule, . . . the rule is now the Kelly rule in California after changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence that superseded Frye.” (People v. Nieves (2021) 11 Cal.5th 404, 442, fn. 8 .) 15 admitting [the challenged evidence], there was no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights” arising from the admission of the evidence].) Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

1992Lay minds might easily, but erroneously, assume that such procedures are objective and infallible.” (Ibid.) *999 While the Kelly-Frye principle is not limited, the court said, to “physical evidence” (People v. Stoll, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 1156 , citing People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 243 , 723 P.2d 1354 ] involving exclusion of hypnotically refreshed testimony), it is generally not available to limit expert medical testimony.

1992Lay minds might easily, but erroneously, assume that such procedures are objective and infallible.” (Ibid.) *999 While the Kelly-Frye principle is not limited, the court said, to “physical evidence” (People v. Stoll, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 1156 , citing People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 243 , 723 P.2d 1354 ] involving exclusion of hypnotically refreshed testimony), it is generally not available to limit expert medical testimony.

2013Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013 (Frye) and People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 (Kelly), also known as the Kelly-Frye test.

2013Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013 (Frye) and People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 (Kelly), also known as the Kelly-Frye test.

2022Nor did Maximo show through cross-examination or her own expert’s testimony that Balogh’s opinions were subject to analysis under the Kelly-Frye test because they fell within the “limited class of expert testimony which is based, in whole or part, on a technique, process, or theory which is new to science and, even more so, the law.’” (People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 605 ; accord, People 28 v. Tran, supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at pp. 186-187.) Although Maximo focuses on the unscientific nature of an expert relying on photographs, the photographs were properly shown to the jury as a demonstrati

2022Nor did Maximo show through cross-examination or her own expert’s testimony that Balogh’s opinions were subject to analysis under the Kelly-Frye test because they fell within the “limited class of expert testimony which is based, in whole or part, on a technique, process, or theory which is new to science and, even more so, the law.’” (People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 605 ; accord, People 28 v. Tran, supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at pp. 186-187.) Although Maximo focuses on the unscientific nature of an expert relying on photographs, the photographs were properly shown to the jury as a demonstrati

2004At this stage, we need not resolve whether EPA Method 200.8 is a Tier 2 test, because adopted by a federal agency, or a Tier 1 test, because also adopted by a qualifying state agency, nor are we prepared to determine whether Mateel in fact complied with both the requirements of the methodology and the additional standards imposed by Regulation 12901, subdivision (f). 8 Under the Kelly rule, formerly known as the Kelly-Frye rule, the “admissibility of expert testimony based on ‘a new scientific technique’ requires proof of its reliability—i.e., that the technique is ‘ “sufficiently established

2004At this stage, we need not resolve whether EPA Method 200.8 is a Tier 2 test, because adopted by a federal agency, or a Tier 1 test, because also adopted by a qualifying state agency, nor are we prepared to determine whether Mateel in fact complied with both the requirements of the methodology and the additional standards imposed by Regulation 12901, subdivision (f). 8 Under the Kelly rule, formerly known as the Kelly-Frye rule, the “admissibility of expert testimony based on ‘a new scientific technique’ requires proof of its reliability—i.e., that the technique is ‘ “sufficiently established

2013Consequently, the same problem discussed in Bledsoe may be present in the case of the child molest syndrome: if it was not developed as a truth-seeking procedure but rather as a therapeutic aid, it cannot be used for a different purpose, i.e., to prove a molestation occurred.” (Sara M., supra, at p. 593, fn. omitted.) The agency, on the other hand, suggests the social worker‟s testimony regarding false memory syndrome was not subject to the Kelly-Frye test, relying on People v. Stoll (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1136 (Stoll).

2013Consequently, the same problem discussed in Bledsoe may be present in the case of the child molest syndrome: if it was not developed as a truth-seeking procedure but rather as a therapeutic aid, it cannot be used for a different purpose, i.e., to prove a molestation occurred.” (Sara M., supra, at p. 593, fn. omitted.) The agency, on the other hand, suggests the social worker‟s testimony regarding false memory syndrome was not subject to the Kelly-Frye test, relying on People v. Stoll (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1136 (Stoll).

2021Scientific evidence must meet the Kelly-Frye test for reliability, but expert medical opinion is not subject to the same test. ( McDonald, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 372-373, overruled on other grounds by People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896 .) The Kelly-Frye rule applies to cases involving novel devices or processes, not to general expert medical testimony, such as a psychologist’s testimony about the behaviors observed in child victims of sexual abuse.

2021Scientific evidence must meet the Kelly-Frye test for reliability, but expert medical opinion is not subject to the same test. ( McDonald, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 372-373, overruled on other grounds by People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896 .) The Kelly-Frye rule applies to cases involving novel devices or processes, not to general expert medical testimony, such as a psychologist’s testimony about the behaviors observed in child victims of sexual abuse.

2016The "Kelly-Frye test," currently called the Kelly test or Kelly rule in California (People v. Soto (1999) 21 Cal.4th 512, 515, fn. 3 ), is a judicially created rule or standard for evaluating the reliability and admissibility of new scientific evidence.

2003(See People v. Axell (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 836, 868 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 411 ] [method of calculating statistical probabilities generally accepted in scientific community]; People v. Barney (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 798, 820-821 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 ] [debate in scientific community following Axell undermined the statistical method]; People v. Venegas, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 82-90 [defining a statistical method that has become generally accepted]; People v. Soto (1999) 21 Cal.4th 512, 515-516 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 34 , 981 P.2d 958 ] [addressing a variation on that method].) As stated in People v. Barney,

1988Yet the aura of infallibility that often surrounds such evidence may well conceal the fact that it remains experimental and tentative. [Citations.] For this reason, courts have invoked the Kelly-Frye rule primarily in cases involving novel devices or processes . . . . [j]] . . .We have never applied the Kelly-Frye rule to expert medical testimony, even when the witness is a psychiatrist and the subject matter is as esoteric as the reconstitution of a past state of mind or the prediction of future dangerousness, or even the diagnosis of an unusual form of mental illness not listed in the diagno

1988Yet the aura of infallibility that often surrounds such evidence may well conceal the fact that it remains experimental and tentative. [Citations.] For this reason, courts have invoked the Kelly-Frye rule primarily in cases involving novel devices or processes . . . . [j]] . . .We have never applied the Kelly-Frye rule to expert medical testimony, even when the witness is a psychiatrist and the subject matter is as esoteric as the reconstitution of a past state of mind or the prediction of future dangerousness, or even the diagnosis of an unusual form of mental illness not listed in the diagno

1989In People v. Bowker (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 385, 391-394 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 886 ], this court held that People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 681 P.2d 291 ] and the Kelly-Frye test preclude the admission of CSAAS evidence to prove that a child has *735 been abused because the syndrome was developed not to prove abuse but to assist in understanding and treating abused children.

1989In People v. Bowker (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 385, 391-394 [ 249 Cal.Rptr. 886 ], this court held that People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 450 , 681 P.2d 291 ] and the Kelly-Frye test preclude the admission of CSAAS evidence to prove that a child has *735 been abused because the syndrome was developed not to prove abuse but to assist in understanding and treating abused children.

2003(See People v. Axell (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 836, 868 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 411 ] [method of calculating statistical probabilities generally accepted in scientific community]; People v. Barney (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 798, 820-821 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 ] [debate in scientific community following Axell undermined the statistical method]; People v. Venegas, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 82-90 [defining a statistical method that has become generally accepted]; People v. Soto (1999) 21 Cal.4th 512, 515-516 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 34 , 981 P.2d 958 ] [addressing a variation on that method].) As stated in People v. Barney,

2003(See People v. Axell (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 836, 868 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 411 ] [method of calculating statistical probabilities generally accepted in scientific community]; People v. Barney (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 798, 820-821 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 ] [debate in scientific community following Axell undermined the statistical method]; People v. Venegas, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 82-90 [defining a statistical method that has become generally accepted]; People v. Soto (1999) 21 Cal.4th 512, 515-516 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 34 , 981 P.2d 958 ] [addressing a variation on that method].) As stated in People v. Barney,

2013The Kelly-Frye test applies to the admissibility of expert testimony based on “a new scientific technique.” (Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30 .) The test involves a two- step process: “(1) The reliability of the method must be established, usually by expert testimony, and (2) the witness furnishing such testimony must be properly qualified as an expert to give an opinion on the subject.” (Ibid., italics omitted.) In support of her argument that the juvenile court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding false memory syndrome, Angelina relies heavily on In re Sara M. 41. (1987) 194 Cal.App

2013The Kelly-Frye test applies to the admissibility of expert testimony based on “a new scientific technique.” (Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30 .) The test involves a two- step process: “(1) The reliability of the method must be established, usually by expert testimony, and (2) the witness furnishing such testimony must be properly qualified as an expert to give an opinion on the subject.” (Ibid., italics omitted.) In support of her argument that the juvenile court erred in admitting expert testimony regarding false memory syndrome, Angelina relies heavily on In re Sara M. 41. (1987) 194 Cal.App

1988We have never applied the Kelly-Frye rule to expert medical testimony, even when the witness is a psychiatrist and the subject matter is as esoteric as the reconstitution of a past state of mind or the prediction of future dangerousness, or even the diagnosis of an unusual form of mental illness not listed in the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association (People v. Phillips (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 69, 86-87 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 703 ] . . . (‘Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy’)).

1988We have never applied the Kelly-Frye rule to expert medical testimony, even when the witness is a psychiatrist and the subject matter is as esoteric as the reconstitution of a past state of mind or the prediction of future dangerousness, or even the diagnosis of an unusual form of mental illness not listed in the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association (People v. Phillips (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 69, 86-87 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 703 ] . . . (‘Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy’)).

2006Although the federal Frye analysis has been superseded by adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence (28 U.S.C.) (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) 509 U.S. 579, 587 [ 125 L.Ed.2d 469 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 ]), the California Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Kelly-Frye test in this state (People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 612 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 ]).

2006Although the federal Frye analysis has been superseded by adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence (28 U.S.C.) (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) 509 U.S. 579, 587 [ 125 L.Ed.2d 469 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 ]), the California Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Kelly-Frye test in this state (People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 612 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 ]).

2003In some *901 instances the evidence passed the Kelly-Frye test, in others it failed; but in all such cases “the rule serves its salutary purpose of preventing the jury from being misled by unproven and ultimately unsound scientific methods.” [Citation.]’ (People v. McDonald, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 372-373, overruled on another ground in People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 914 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 , 4 P.3d 265 ].) “Thus, Kelly analysis is limited to situations where it will ‘forestall the jury’s uncritical acceptance of scientific evidence or technology that is so foreign to everyday expe

2003In some *901 instances the evidence passed the Kelly-Frye test, in others it failed; but in all such cases “the rule serves its salutary purpose of preventing the jury from being misled by unproven and ultimately unsound scientific methods.” [Citation.]’ (People v. McDonald, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 372-373, overruled on another ground in People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 914 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 , 4 P.3d 265 ].) “Thus, Kelly analysis is limited to situations where it will ‘forestall the jury’s uncritical acceptance of scientific evidence or technology that is so foreign to everyday expe

2006Exclusion of the Immunosciences Mycotoxin Antibody Test and the IBT Blood Serology Test Appellants contend that the trial court erroneously applied the Kelly/Frye test to exclude the results of the Immunosciences mycotoxin antibody test and the IBT blood serology test. “[T]he Kelly/Frye test constitutes a judicially created rule relating to the admissibility of certain types of evidence . . . .” (People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 845 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 420 , 94 P.3d 551 ].) “[UJnder the Kelly-Frye rule the proponent of evidence derived from a new scientific methodology must satisfy thre

2006Exclusion of the Immunosciences Mycotoxin Antibody Test and the IBT Blood Serology Test Appellants contend that the trial court erroneously applied the Kelly/Frye test to exclude the results of the Immunosciences mycotoxin antibody test and the IBT blood serology test. “[T]he Kelly/Frye test constitutes a judicially created rule relating to the admissibility of certain types of evidence . . . .” (People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 845 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 420 , 94 P.3d 551 ].) “[UJnder the Kelly-Frye rule the proponent of evidence derived from a new scientific methodology must satisfy thre

2021These statutes do not apply here, as neither mother nor grandmother demanded discovery concerning expert witnesses. 13 “Under the Kelly-Frye rule, evidence based on a new scientific method of proof is admissible only upon a showing that the procedure has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it was developed. [Citations.] The test is usually applied to novel devices or processes involving the manipulation of physical evidence ….” (In re Amber B. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 682, 686 , citing People v. Kelly 34. section 1521 required production of the electronic devi

2021These statutes do not apply here, as neither mother nor grandmother demanded discovery concerning expert witnesses. 13 “Under the Kelly-Frye rule, evidence based on a new scientific method of proof is admissible only upon a showing that the procedure has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it was developed. [Citations.] The test is usually applied to novel devices or processes involving the manipulation of physical evidence ….” (In re Amber B. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 682, 686 , citing People v. Kelly 34. section 1521 required production of the electronic devi

1993Vincent also contends the therapist’s opinion that Vincent was the perpetrator of the sexual molest was inadmissible hearsay (see In re Cheryl H. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1098 , 1118-1122 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 789 ], criticized on other grounds in People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 893 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678 , 830 P.2d 712 ]) and also should have been excluded because it was never established that the doll play therapy that formed the basis of Gang’s opinion was “accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it was developed” under the Kelly-Frye test. 6 We note that no objection to Gang’s

1993Vincent also contends the therapist’s opinion that Vincent was the perpetrator of the sexual molest was inadmissible hearsay (see In re Cheryl H. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1098 , 1118-1122 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 789 ], criticized on other grounds in People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 893 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678 , 830 P.2d 712 ]) and also should have been excluded because it was never established that the doll play therapy that formed the basis of Gang’s opinion was “accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it was developed” under the Kelly-Frye test. 6 We note that no objection to Gang’s

2026Asserted errors under Crawford and Sanchez Before trial commenced in this case, the trial court conducted numerous pretrial hearings relating to the admissibility of certain scientific evidence pursuant to what has become known as the Kelly rule.15 Described in greater detail below, the Kelly rule “provides a framework within which courts can analyze the reliability of expert testimony based on new or novel scientific methods or techniques.” (People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153, 223 (Lucas).) “Expert testimony based on the application of a scientific technique is admissible in California if

2026Asserted errors under Crawford and Sanchez Before trial commenced in this case, the trial court conducted numerous pretrial hearings relating to the admissibility of certain scientific evidence pursuant to what has become known as the Kelly rule.15 Described in greater detail below, the Kelly rule “provides a framework within which courts can analyze the reliability of expert testimony based on new or novel scientific methods or techniques.” (People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153, 223 (Lucas).) “Expert testimony based on the application of a scientific technique is admissible in California if

2023Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013 [(Frye)], the rule is now the Kelly rule in California after changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence that superseded Frye.” (People v. Nieves (2021) 11 Cal.5th 404, 442, fn. 8 (Nieves), citing to People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 545 .) Although both parties characterize this argument as arising under Kelly/Frye, we will refer to this as the Kelly rule. 5 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). 2.

2022(People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 545 [“Until 1993, this rule was generally known in this state as the Kelly-Frye rule,” but “our state law rule is now referred to simply as the Kelly test or rule”].) Accordingly, we will not refer to Frye except where mentioned in previous cases. 32 Specifically, defendant asserts this case involved two novel scientific techniques subject to Kelly: (1) “the whole process of estimating location based on cell tower data” and (2) more specific to this case, “the algorithm that produced the video shown to the jury, purporting to show the locations of vario

1988We have never applied the Kelly-Frye rule to expert medical testimony, even when the witness is a psychiatrist and the subject matter is as esoteric as the reconstitution of a past state of mind or the prediction of future dangerousness, or even the diagnosis of an unusual form of mental illness not listed in the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association [citation].” (At pp. 372-373.) Characteristic of those new techniques subject to the Kelly requirements of reliability and acceptance in the relevant scientific community are such devices or analyses as hypnosis-induced testimo

1988We have never applied the Kelly-Frye rule to expert medical testimony, even when the witness is a psychiatrist and the subject matter is as esoteric as the reconstitution of a past state of mind or the prediction of future dangerousness, or even the diagnosis of an unusual form of mental illness not listed in the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association [citation].” (At pp. 372-373.) Characteristic of those new techniques subject to the Kelly requirements of reliability and acceptance in the relevant scientific community are such devices or analyses as hypnosis-induced testimo

2023(See, e.g., Lapenias, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 173; Munch, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at pp. 472-473; People v. Harlan (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 439, 449 .) Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony about CSAAS. 3 As explained by the California Supreme Court, “[u]ntil 1993, this rule was generally known in this state as the Kelly-Frye rule because this court in [People v.] Kelly [ 17 Cal.3d 24 ] had relied on the reasoning of a federal appellate court decision, Frye v. United States (D.C.

2022(People v. Harlan (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 439, 448 (Harlan).) “The Kelly standard provides a framework within which courts can analyze the reliability of expert testimony based on new or novel scientific methods or techniques.” (People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153 , 223–224, disapproved on another point in People v. Romero and Self (2015) 62 Cal.4th 1 , 53–54, fn. 19; People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 316 [“ ‘Kelly/Frye only applies to that limited class of expert testimony which is based, in whole or part, on a technique, process, or theory which is new to science and, even more so, the

2023Kelly-Frye “renders inadmissible evidence derived from a ‘new scientific technique’ unless the proponent shows [among other things] that . . . ‘the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community.’ ” (People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 315 .) However, it is only when CSAAS evidence is offered as evidence of defendant’s guilt, or as a predictive tool, that courts have excluded the evidence as incompatible with Kelly-Frye.

2023Kelly-Frye “renders inadmissible evidence derived from a ‘new scientific technique’ unless the proponent shows [among other things] that . . . ‘the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community.’ ” (People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 315 .) However, it is only when CSAAS evidence is offered as evidence of defendant’s guilt, or as a predictive tool, that courts have excluded the evidence as incompatible with Kelly-Frye.

2006Exclusion of the Immunosciences Mycotoxin Antibody Test and the IBT Blood Serology Test Appellants contend that the trial court erroneously applied the Kelly/Frye test to exclude the results of the Immunosciences mycotoxin antibody test and the IBT blood serology test. “[T]he Kelly/Frye test constitutes a judicially created rule relating to the admissibility of certain types of evidence . . . .” (People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 845 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 420 , 94 P.3d 551 ].) “[UJnder the Kelly-Frye rule the proponent of evidence derived from a new scientific methodology must satisfy thre

2006Exclusion of the Immunosciences Mycotoxin Antibody Test and the IBT Blood Serology Test Appellants contend that the trial court erroneously applied the Kelly/Frye test to exclude the results of the Immunosciences mycotoxin antibody test and the IBT blood serology test. “[T]he Kelly/Frye test constitutes a judicially created rule relating to the admissibility of certain types of evidence . . . .” (People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 845 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 420 , 94 P.3d 551 ].) “[UJnder the Kelly-Frye rule the proponent of evidence derived from a new scientific methodology must satisfy thre

2013The conclusion that a certain legal principle, like the Kelly-Frye rule, is applicable or not in a certain factual situation is examined independently. [Citation.]” (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 266 .) 3.

2013The conclusion that a certain legal principle, like the Kelly-Frye rule, is applicable or not in a certain factual situation is examined independently. [Citation.]” (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 266 .) 3.