Frye test in Idaho

10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2013 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 (15)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Iwakirigreen idaho · 1984 · cited in 4 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1991–1995 2 sentences 1995In State v. Iwakiri, 106 Idaho 618 , 682 P.2d 571 (1984), this Court rejected the Frye standard for determining the admissibility of hypnotically refreshed testimony. 1995In State v. Iwakiri, 106 Idaho 618 , 682 P.2d 571 (1984), this Court rejected the Frye standard for determining the admissibility of hypnotically refreshed testimony.	2	4
State v. Creagreen idaho · 1991 · cited in 3 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1991–1995 2 sentences 1995State v. Crea, 119 Idaho 352, 353 , 806 P.2d 445, 446 (1991). 876 This Court has previously rejected the so-called Frye rule for analyzing the admissibility of scientific evidence. 1995State v. Crea, 119 Idaho 352, 353 , 806 P.2d 445, 446 (1991). 876 This Court has previously rejected the so-called Frye rule for analyzing the admissibility of scientific evidence.	2	3
State v. Rodgersgreen idaho · 1991 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–1995 2 sentences 1995This is consistent with State v. Rodgers, 119 Idaho 1047, 1049 , 812 P.2d 1208, 1210 (1991), decided shortly after Garrett : Rodgers asserts that blood spatter interpretation has not generally been accepted within the scientific community and therefore, under the Frye test, the trial court erred by allowing the two witnesses to testify. 1995This is consistent with State v. Rodgers, 119 Idaho 1047, 1049 , 812 P.2d 1208, 1210 (1991), decided shortly after Garrett : Rodgers asserts that blood spatter interpretation has not generally been accepted within the scientific community and therefore, under the Frye test, the trial court erred by allowing the two witnesses to testify.	2	2
State v. Faughtgreen idaho · 1995 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1996–1999 2 sentences 1999See State v. Faught, 127 Idaho 873, 876 , 908 P.2d 566, 569 (1995). 1999See State v. Faught, 127 Idaho 873, 876 , 908 P.2d 566, 569 (1995).	1	2
People v. Shirleygreen cal · 1982 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1984–1995 2 sentences 1995The Frye rule derives from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and has been interpreted to establish a per se rule, conditioning “the admissibility of evidence based on a new scientific method of proof on a showing that the technique has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it developed.” People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 251 , 723 P.2d 1354, 1362 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 , 103 S.Ct. 133 , 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982). 1995The Frye rule derives from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and has been interpreted to establish a per se rule, conditioning “the admissibility of evidence based on a new scientific method of proof on a showing that the technique has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it developed.” People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 251 , 723 P.2d 1354, 1362 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 , 103 S.Ct. 133 , 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982).	1	2
State v. Murphygreen iowa · 1990 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See, e.g., State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990); Kelly v. State, 792 S.W.2d 579, 584-85 (Tex.App.1990). 1992See, e.g., State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990); Kelly v. State, 792 S.W.2d 579, 584-85 (Tex.App.1990).	1	1
United States v. Jay Dennis Gouldgreen ca4 · 1984 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See United States v. Gould, 741 F.2d 45, 48-49, n. 2 (4th Cir.1984); United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1237-39 (3d Cir. 1985). 1992See United States v. Gould, 741 F.2d 45, 48-49, n. 2 (4th Cir.1984); United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1237-39 (3d Cir. 1985).	1	1
United States v. John W. Downinggreen ca3 · 1985 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See United States v. Gould, 741 F.2d 45, 48-49, n. 2 (4th Cir.1984); United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1237-39 (3d Cir. 1985). 1992See United States v. Gould, 741 F.2d 45, 48-49, n. 2 (4th Cir.1984); United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1237-39 (3d Cir. 1985).	1	1
United States v. Tamara Jo Smithgreen ca7 · 1989 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See, e.g., United States v. Boise, 916 F.2d 497, 503 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Two Bulls, 918 F.2d 56 , 60 n. 7 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Smith, 869 F.2d 348, 353 (7th Cir.1989). 1992See, e.g., United States v. Boise, 916 F.2d 497, 503 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Two Bulls, 918 F.2d 56 , 60 n. 7 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Smith, 869 F.2d 348, 353 (7th Cir.1989).	1	1
United States v. Earl Foster Boisegreen ca9 · 1990 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See, e.g., United States v. Boise, 916 F.2d 497, 503 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Two Bulls, 918 F.2d 56 , 60 n. 7 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Smith, 869 F.2d 348, 353 (7th Cir.1989). 1992See, e.g., United States v. Boise, 916 F.2d 497, 503 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Two Bulls, 918 F.2d 56 , 60 n. 7 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Smith, 869 F.2d 348, 353 (7th Cir.1989).	1	1
Kelly v. Stategreen texapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See, e.g., State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990); Kelly v. State, 792 S.W.2d 579, 584-85 (Tex.App.1990). 1992See, e.g., State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990); Kelly v. State, 792 S.W.2d 579, 584-85 (Tex.App.1990).	1	1
Heath v. United States Parole Commissiongreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See Mustafa v. United States, 479 U.S. 953 , 107 S.Ct. 444 , 93 L.Ed.2d 392 (1986) (White, J., joined by Brennan, J., dissenting on denial of petition for writ of certiorari on the ground that the Court should resolve the split in authority over the applicability of the Frye test to a rule 702 analysis). 1992See Mustafa v. United States, 479 U.S. 953 , 107 S.Ct. 444 , 93 L.Ed.2d 392 (1986) (White, J., joined by Brennan, J., dissenting on denial of petition for writ of certiorari on the ground that the Court should resolve the split in authority over the applicability of the Frye test to a rule 702 analysis).	1	1
Wainwright v. DeAngelogreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See Mustafa v. United States, 479 U.S. 953 , 107 S.Ct. 444 , 93 L.Ed.2d 392 (1986) (White, J., joined by Brennan, J., dissenting on denial of petition for writ of certiorari on the ground that the Court should resolve the split in authority over the applicability of the Frye test to a rule 702 analysis). 1992See Mustafa v. United States, 479 U.S. 953 , 107 S.Ct. 444 , 93 L.Ed.2d 392 (1986) (White, J., joined by Brennan, J., dissenting on denial of petition for writ of certiorari on the ground that the Court should resolve the split in authority over the applicability of the Frye test to a rule 702 analysis).	1	1
Mustafa v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See Mustafa v. United States, 479 U.S. 953 , 107 S.Ct. 444 , 93 L.Ed.2d 392 (1986) (White, J., joined by Brennan, J., dissenting on denial of petition for writ of certiorari on the ground that the Court should resolve the split in authority over the applicability of the Frye test to a rule 702 analysis). 1992See Mustafa v. United States, 479 U.S. 953 , 107 S.Ct. 444 , 93 L.Ed.2d 392 (1986) (White, J., joined by Brennan, J., dissenting on denial of petition for writ of certiorari on the ground that the Court should resolve the split in authority over the applicability of the Frye test to a rule 702 analysis).	1	1
State v. Canadaygreen wash · 1978 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 2 sentences 1984In other words, scientists in the field must make the initial determination of whether an experimental principle is reliable and accurate." State v. Canaday, 90 Wash.2d 808 , 585 P.2d 1185, 1188 (1978). 1984In other words, scientists in the field must make the initial determination of whether an experimental principle is reliable and accurate." State v. Canaday, 90 Wash.2d 808 , 585 P.2d 1185, 1188 (1978).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Frye v. United States red cadc · 1923 2 sentences 1995The Frye rule derives from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and has been interpreted to establish a per se rule, conditioning “the admissibility of evidence based on a new scientific method of proof on a showing that the technique has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it developed.” People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 251 , 723 P.2d 1354, 1362 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 , 103 S.Ct. 133 , 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982). 1995The Frye rule derives from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and has been interpreted to establish a per se rule, conditioning “the admissibility of evidence based on a new scientific method of proof on a showing that the technique has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it developed.” People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 251 , 723 P.2d 1354, 1362 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 , 103 S.Ct. 133 , 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982).	5	1984–1995
State v. Garrett green idaho · 1991 2 sentences 1995However, two of the remaining three Justices concurred only in the result, and Justice Boyle specifically noted that in Crea , “we expressly declined to adopt the Frye criterion as the basis for admission of scientifically derived evidence as it related to the facts of that case.” Id. 119 Idaho at 883, 811 P.2d at 493 . 1995However, two of the remaining three Justices concurred only in the result, and Justice Boyle specifically noted that in Crea , “we expressly declined to adopt the Frye criterion as the basis for admission of scientifically derived evidence as it related to the facts of that case.” Id. 119 Idaho at 883, 811 P.2d at 493 .	2	1992–1995
State v. Gleason green idaho · 1992 2 sentences 2013The Court there abandoned use of the Frye standard to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence, instead directing that “the appropriate test for measuring the scientific reliability of evidence is I.R.E. 702.” Gleason, 123 Idaho at 65 , 844 P.2d at 694 . 2013The Court there abandoned use of the Frye standard to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence, instead directing that “the appropriate test for measuring the scientific reliability of evidence is I.R.E. 702.” Gleason, 123 Idaho at 65 , 844 P.2d at 694 .	1	2013–2013
Cochrane v. Marx green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 1995The Frye rule derives from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and has been interpreted to establish a per se rule, conditioning “the admissibility of evidence based on a new scientific method of proof on a showing that the technique has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it developed.” People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 251 , 723 P.2d 1354, 1362 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 , 103 S.Ct. 133 , 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982). 1995The Frye rule derives from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and has been interpreted to establish a per se rule, conditioning “the admissibility of evidence based on a new scientific method of proof on a showing that the technique has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it developed.” People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 251 , 723 P.2d 1354, 1362 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 , 103 S.Ct. 133 , 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982).	1	1995–1995
Swift Agricultural Chemicals Corp. v. Farmland Industries, Inc. green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 1995The Frye rule derives from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and has been interpreted to establish a per se rule, conditioning “the admissibility of evidence based on a new scientific method of proof on a showing that the technique has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it developed.” People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 251 , 723 P.2d 1354, 1362 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 , 103 S.Ct. 133 , 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982). 1995The Frye rule derives from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and has been interpreted to establish a per se rule, conditioning “the admissibility of evidence based on a new scientific method of proof on a showing that the technique has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it developed.” People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 251 , 723 P.2d 1354, 1362 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 , 103 S.Ct. 133 , 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982).	1	1995–1995
Chin v. United States green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 1995The Frye rule derives from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and has been interpreted to establish a per se rule, conditioning “the admissibility of evidence based on a new scientific method of proof on a showing that the technique has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it developed.” People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 251 , 723 P.2d 1354, 1362 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 , 103 S.Ct. 133 , 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982). 1995The Frye rule derives from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and has been interpreted to establish a per se rule, conditioning “the admissibility of evidence based on a new scientific method of proof on a showing that the technique has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community in which it developed.” People v. Shirley, 31 Cal.3d 18 , 181 Cal.Rptr. 243, 251 , 723 P.2d 1354, 1362 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 860 , 103 S.Ct. 133 , 74 L.Ed.2d 114 (1982).	1	1995–1995
United States v. Matthew Sylvester Two Bulls, A/K/A Matthew Sylvester Two Bulls, Jr. green ca8 · 1990 2 sentences 1992See, e.g., United States v. Boise, 916 F.2d 497, 503 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Two Bulls, 918 F.2d 56 , 60 n. 7 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Smith, 869 F.2d 348, 353 (7th Cir.1989). 1992See, e.g., United States v. Boise, 916 F.2d 497, 503 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Two Bulls, 918 F.2d 56 , 60 n. 7 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Smith, 869 F.2d 348, 353 (7th Cir.1989).	1	1992–1992
State v. Superior Court green ariz · 1986 2 sentences 1991State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986). 1991State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269 , 718 P.2d 171 (1986).	1	1991–1991
Polk v. State green mdctspecapp · 1981 2 sentences 1984Polk v. State, 48 Md. 1984Polk v. State, 48 Md.	1	1984–1984

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 18-8004 (5)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

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