scientific principle in Kansas

2010This court summarized the reasons other jurisdictions had concluded that the HGN test is scientific in nature by stating: “These courts have given various reasons for holding that I-IGN evidence is scientific in nature: The HGN test is distinguished from other field sobriety tests in that science, rather than common knowledge, provides the legitimacy for HGN testing. [Citations omitted.] Certain reactions to alcohol are so common that judicial notice will be taken of them; however, HGN testing does not fall into this category. [Citation omitted.] HGN test results are ‘scientific evidence based

2009The Witte court summarized the reasons other jurisdictions had concluded that the HGN test was scientific in nature in the following manner: “These courts have given various reasons for holding that HGN evidence is scientific in nature: The HGN test is distinguished from other field sobriety tests in that science, rather than common knowledge, provides the legitimacy for HGN testing. [Citations omitted.] Certain reactions to alcohol are so common that judicial notice will be taken of them; however, HGN testing does not fall into tins *1110 category. [Citation omitted.] HGN test results are ‘sc

2003In Shively, 268 Kan. at 575-76 , we further stated: “The general acceptance test of Frye governs the admissibility of expert scientific evidence in Kansas in those situations wherein such a test or standard is required. [Citation omitted.] As explained in State v. Warden, 257 Kan. 94, 108 , 891 P.2d 1074 (1995): ‘The general rule enunciated in Frye prohibits expert testimony concerning a scientific principle or discovery unless the principle is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Frye, 293 F. at 1014 .

2003In Shively, 268 Kan. at 575-76 , we further stated: “The general acceptance test of Frye governs the admissibility of expert scientific evidence in Kansas in those situations wherein such a test or standard is required. [Citation omitted.] As explained in State v. Warden, 257 Kan. 94, 108 , 891 P.2d 1074 (1995): ‘The general rule enunciated in Frye prohibits expert testimony concerning a scientific principle or discovery unless the principle is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Frye, 293 F. at 1014 .

2011In People v. King, 663 N.Y.S.2d 610, 614 , 232 App. Div. 2d 111 (1997), the court stated: “In this regard we note that the defendant could not plausibly assert any expectation of privacy with respect to the scientific analysis of a lawfully seized item of tangible property, such as a gun or a controlled substance.

2008See Marks, 231 Kan. at 654 ; State v. Graham, 275 Kan. 176, 185 , 61 P.3d 662 (2003); State v. Witte, 251 Kan. 313, 326-27 , 836 P.2d 1110 (1992); Monahan & Walker, A Judge’s Guide to Using Social Science, 43 *934 Ct. Rev. 156, 162 (2007).

2008See Marks, 231 Kan. at 654 ; State v. Graham, 275 Kan. 176, 185 , 61 P.3d 662 (2003); State v. Witte, 251 Kan. 313, 326-27 , 836 P.2d 1110 (1992); Monahan & Walker, A Judge’s Guide to Using Social Science, 43 *934 Ct. Rev. 156, 162 (2007).

2003In Shively, 268 Kan. at 575-76 , we further stated: “The general acceptance test of Frye governs the admissibility of expert scientific evidence in Kansas in those situations wherein such a test or standard is required. [Citation omitted.] As explained in State v. Warden, 257 Kan. 94, 108 , 891 P.2d 1074 (1995): ‘The general rule enunciated in Frye prohibits expert testimony concerning a scientific principle or discovery unless the principle is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Frye, 293 F. at 1014 .

2003“We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made.” 293 F. at 1014 . *183 Thus, the Frye standard of general acceptance “applies where a new or experimental scientific technique is employed by an expert witness.” State v. Price, 30 Kan.

2000The district court determined that the expert testimony had been pure opinion and that the ophthalmologist had not relied on a scientific principle or test; thus, there was no Frye requirement. 729 So. 2d at 997 .

1992HGN test results are "scientific evidence based on the scientific principle that consumption of alcohol causes the type of nystagmus measured by the HGN test." Miller, 367 Pa. Super. at 365 .

1992Defendant relies upon State v. Deppish, 248 Kan. 217 , 807 P.2d 144 (1991), where this court considered the question whether DNA profiling evidence met the test for admissibility of a new scientific principle as enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

1992Defendant relies upon State v. Deppish, 248 Kan. 217 , 807 P.2d 144 (1991), where this court considered the question whether DNA profiling evidence met the test for admissibility of a new scientific principle as enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

1988The Holowko court held computer records of a telephone trap admissible upon foundation proof of the method of recording and proper functioning of the particular device generating the data. 109 Ill. 2d at 192-93 .

1988The Armstead court viewed the computer-generated trap data as demonstrative evidence of a scientific test or experiment and found the procedure performed by the telephone company computer demonstrated that the data was accurate and reliable enough to justify its admission. 432 So. 2d at 841 .

1982In Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374, 380 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978), cited with approval in State v. Washington, 229 Kan. at 53 , the court stated: “On occasion, the validity and reliability of a scientific technique may be so broadly and generally accepted in the scientific community that a trial court may take judicial notice of its reliability.

1982In Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374, 380 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978), cited with approval in State v. Washington, 229 Kan. at 53 , the court stated: “On occasion, the validity and reliability of a scientific technique may be so broadly and generally accepted in the scientific community that a trial court may take judicial notice of its reliability.

1982In Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374, 380 , 391 A.2d 364 (1978), cited with approval in State v. Washington, 229 Kan. at 53 , the court stated: “On occasion, the validity and reliability of a scientific technique may be so broadly and generally accepted in the scientific community that a trial court may take judicial notice of its reliability.