Frye hearing in Illinois

2026Id. -9- ¶ 36 Significantly, the Frye test applies only to scientific methodologies that are “new” or “novel.” Generally, a methodology is considered “new” or “novel” if it is “original or striking” or “does ‘not resembl[e] something formerly known or used.’ ” Id. (quoting Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., 199 Ill. 2d 63, 79 (2002)).

2026Id. -9- ¶ 36 Significantly, the Frye test applies only to scientific methodologies that are “new” or “novel.” Generally, a methodology is considered “new” or “novel” if it is “original or striking” or “does ‘not resembl[e] something formerly known or used.’ ” Id. (quoting Donaldson v. Central Illinois Public Service Co., 199 Ill. 2d 63, 79 (2002)).

2026Additionally, the Frye standard applies only to scientific methodologies that are “new” or “novel.” Id.

2026Additionally, the Frye standard applies only to scientific methodologies that are “new” or “novel.” Id.

2026The recognition that ‘scientific’ evidence ‘carries a greater weight in the eyes of the jury’ because it is ‘equated with the truth’ is precisely why Illinois courts require scientific evidence to meet the Frye standard.” Id. ¶ 84 (quoting People v. McKown, 226 Ill. 2d 245, 254 (2007)).

2026The recognition that ‘scientific’ evidence ‘carries a greater weight in the eyes of the jury’ because it is ‘equated with the truth’ is precisely why Illinois courts require scientific evidence to meet the Frye standard.” Id. ¶ 84 (quoting People v. McKown, 226 Ill. 2d 245, 254 (2007)).

2026After an oral objection by the defense, the court had instructed defense counsel to put his objections in writing, which was done, and the State 6 No. 1-23-2494 had responded with hundreds of pages of a transcript from a Frye hearing (see Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

2026Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (a) request a Frye hearing (Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

2020In contrast with Horn, Illinois courts have recognized an officer’s ability to testify to SFST under the applicable Frye standard (see e.g., McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278 ) and, more importantly, that an officer may testify as to a driver’s intoxication based on the results of non- scientific sobriety tests, such as the one-leg stand or walk and turn tests (e.g., People v. Bostelman, 325 Ill.

2020In contrast with Horn, Illinois courts have recognized an officer’s ability to testify to SFST under the applicable Frye standard (see e.g., McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278 ) and, more importantly, that an officer may testify as to a driver’s intoxication based on the results of non- scientific sobriety tests, such as the one-leg stand or walk and turn tests (e.g., People v. Bostelman, 325 Ill.

2022Our supreme court has observed that the primary focus of a Frye test is “ ‘counting scientists’ votes.’ ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Simons, 213 Ill. 2d at 532 (quoting People v. Miller, 173 Ill. 2d 167, 205 (1996) (McMorrow, J., concurring)).

2022Our supreme court has observed that the primary focus of a Frye test is “ ‘counting scientists’ votes.’ ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Simons, 213 Ill. 2d at 532 (quoting People v. Miller, 173 Ill. 2d 167, 205 (1996) (McMorrow, J., concurring)).

2012See People v. Hickey, 178 Ill.2d 256, 279 , 227 Ill.Dec. 428 , 687 N.E.2d 910 (1997) (upholding, based on Miller, the trial court's denial of a Frye hearing on the product rule); see also People v. Basler, 193 Ill.2d 545, 551 , 251 Ill.Dec. 171 , 740 N.E.2d 1 (2000) ("Where * * * a scientific method has been shown to be generally accepted, a Frye test is no longer necessary each time the State seeks to use evidence obtained by that method.").

2012See People v. Hickey, 178 Ill.2d 256, 279 , 227 Ill.Dec. 428 , 687 N.E.2d 910 (1997) (upholding, based on Miller, the trial court's denial of a Frye hearing on the product rule); see also People v. Basler, 193 Ill.2d 545, 551 , 251 Ill.Dec. 171 , 740 N.E.2d 1 (2000) ("Where * * * a scientific method has been shown to be generally accepted, a Frye test is no longer necessary each time the State seeks to use evidence obtained by that method.").

2002After considering the evidence and counsel’s arguments, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion in limine, upon determining that the data downloaded from the SDM in Danielle’s Cavalier and opinions regarding that data were admissible at trial under both (1) the Frye standard (Frye, 293 F. at 1014 ); and (2) the “Frye-plus-reliability” standard set forth by this court in Harris v. Cropmate Co., 302 Ill.

2002After considering the evidence and counsel’s arguments, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion in limine, upon determining that the data downloaded from the SDM in Danielle’s Cavalier and opinions regarding that data were admissible at trial under both (1) the Frye standard (Frye, 293 F. at 1014 ); and (2) the “Frye-plus-reliability” standard set forth by this court in Harris v. Cropmate Co., 302 Ill.

2018See People v. Zayas , 131 Ill. 2d 284 , 296, 137 Ill.Dec. 568 , 546 N.E.2d 513 (1989) (hypnotically refreshed testimony); People v. Baynes , 88 Ill. 2d 225 , 244, 58 Ill.Dec. 819 , 430 N.E.2d 1070 (1982) (polygraph tests). ¶ 61 Although we understand the concerns raised by other courts and by the NCR in its report regarding the subjectivity of firearm identification testimony and the inability to test its accuracy, we cannot say that the circuit court erred in denying Sebastian's motion for a Frye hearing.

2018See People v. Zayas , 131 Ill. 2d 284 , 296, 137 Ill.Dec. 568 , 546 N.E.2d 513 (1989) (hypnotically refreshed testimony); People v. Baynes , 88 Ill. 2d 225 , 244, 58 Ill.Dec. 819 , 430 N.E.2d 1070 (1982) (polygraph tests). ¶ 61 Although we understand the concerns raised by other courts and by the NCR in its report regarding the subjectivity of firearm identification testimony and the inability to test its accuracy, we cannot say that the circuit court erred in denying Sebastian's motion for a Frye hearing.

2018See People v. Zayas , 131 Ill. 2d 284 , 296, 137 Ill.Dec. 568 , 546 N.E.2d 513 (1989) (hypnotically refreshed testimony); People v. Baynes , 88 Ill. 2d 225 , 244, 58 Ill.Dec. 819 , 430 N.E.2d 1070 (1982) (polygraph tests). ¶ 61 Although we understand the concerns raised by other courts and by the NCR in its report regarding the subjectivity of firearm identification testimony and the inability to test its accuracy, we cannot say that the circuit court erred in denying Sebastian's motion for a Frye hearing.

2018See People v. Zayas , 131 Ill. 2d 284 , 296, 137 Ill.Dec. 568 , 546 N.E.2d 513 (1989) (hypnotically refreshed testimony); People v. Baynes , 88 Ill. 2d 225 , 244, 58 Ill.Dec. 819 , 430 N.E.2d 1070 (1982) (polygraph tests). ¶ 61 Although we understand the concerns raised by other courts and by the NCR in its report regarding the subjectivity of firearm identification testimony and the inability to test its accuracy, we cannot say that the circuit court erred in denying Sebastian's motion for a Frye hearing.

2008App. 3d at 334 , 681 N.E.2d at 1078-79 (finding admission of HGN test at trial without a Frye hearing was harmless in light of the other evi- dence of the defendant's guilt).

2008App. 3d at 334 , 681 N.E.2d at 1078-79 (finding admission of HGN test at trial without a Frye hearing was harmless in light of the other evi- dence of the defendant's guilt).

2017See In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill. 2d at 519 (trial court will apply the Frye test only if the scientific principle, technique, or test offered by the expert to support his or her conclusion is new or novel); Donaldson, 199 Ill. 2d at 79 (generally, a scientific technique is new or novel if it is original or striking or does not resemble something formerly known or used).

2017See In re Marriage of Bates, 212 Ill. 2d at 519 (trial court will apply the Frye test only if the scientific principle, technique, or test offered by the expert to support his or her conclusion is new or novel); Donaldson, 199 Ill. 2d at 79 (generally, a scientific technique is new or novel if it is original or striking or does not resemble something formerly known or used).

2026Where an expert witness testifies to an opinion based on a new or novel scientific methodology or principle, the proponent of the opinion has the burden of showing the methodology or scientific principle on which the opinion is based is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” ¶ 35 “The Frye test is used to exclude new or novel scientific evidence that undeservedly creates ‘a perception of certainty when the basis for the evidence or opinion is actually invalid.’ ” In re Commitment of Bauer, 2020 IL App (2d) 180905 , ¶ 8 (quoting

2026Where an expert witness testifies to an opinion based on a new or novel scientific methodology or principle, the proponent of the opinion has the burden of showing the methodology or scientific principle on which the opinion is based is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” ¶ 35 “The Frye test is used to exclude new or novel scientific evidence that undeservedly creates ‘a perception of certainty when the basis for the evidence or opinion is actually invalid.’ ” In re Commitment of Bauer, 2020 IL App (2d) 180905 , ¶ 8 (quoting

2002See People v. Hickey, 178 Ill. 2d 256, 277 (1997); see also Miller, 173 Ill. 2d at 187-88 (DNA analysis admissible in fight of expert’s testimony and appellate court decisions approving of the technique); Thomas, 137 Ill. 2d at 518 (the appellate court in a prior case held that electrophoresis is generally accepted; thus, “[d]efendant’s challenges to the process *** were held in the proper forum; that is, in front of the jury by cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and presentation of defendant’s own witnesses”); Eyler, 133 Ill. 2d at 211-12 (discussing the “superglue” technique to enhan

2002See People v. Hickey, 178 Ill. 2d 256, 277 (1997); see also Miller, 173 Ill. 2d at 187-88 (DNA analysis admissible in fight of expert’s testimony and appellate court decisions approving of the technique); Thomas, 137 Ill. 2d at 518 (the appellate court in a prior case held that electrophoresis is generally accepted; thus, “[d]efendant’s challenges to the process *** were held in the proper forum; that is, in front of the jury by cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and presentation of defendant’s own witnesses”); Eyler, 133 Ill. 2d at 211-12 (discussing the “superglue” technique to enhan

2002See People v. Hickey, 178 Ill. 2d 256, 277 (1997); see also Miller, 173 Ill. 2d at 187-88 (DNA analysis admissible in fight of expert’s testimony and appellate court decisions approving of the technique); Thomas, 137 Ill. 2d at 518 (the appellate court in a prior case held that electrophoresis is generally accepted; thus, “[d]efendant’s challenges to the process *** were held in the proper forum; that is, in front of the jury by cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and presentation of defendant’s own witnesses”); Eyler, 133 Ill. 2d at 211-12 (discussing the “superglue” technique to enhan

2002See People v. Hickey, 178 Ill. 2d 256, 277 (1997); see also Miller, 173 Ill. 2d at 187-88 (DNA analysis admissible in fight of expert’s testimony and appellate court decisions approving of the technique); Thomas, 137 Ill. 2d at 518 (the appellate court in a prior case held that electrophoresis is generally accepted; thus, “[d]efendant’s challenges to the process *** were held in the proper forum; that is, in front of the jury by cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and presentation of defendant’s own witnesses”); Eyler, 133 Ill. 2d at 211-12 (discussing the “superglue” technique to enhan

2003Our decision in Bolton requiring a Frye hearing is consistent with the three reported cases in Illinois discussing admissibility of actuarial tests relied upon by experts testifying on the detention of sexually violent persons: Taylor, 335 Ill.App.3d 965 , 270 Ill.Dec. 361 , 782 N.E.2d 920 , Hargett, 338 Ill.App.3d 669 , 272 Ill.Dec. 18 , 786 *158 N.E.2d 557, and Traynoff, 338 Ill.App.3d 949 , 273 Ill.Dec. 691 , 789 N.E.2d 865 .

2003Our decision in Bolton requiring a Frye hearing is consistent with the three reported cases in Illinois discussing admissibility of actuarial tests relied upon by experts testifying on the detention of sexually violent persons: Taylor, 335 Ill.App.3d 965 , 270 Ill.Dec. 361 , 782 N.E.2d 920 , Hargett, 338 Ill.App.3d 669 , 272 Ill.Dec. 18 , 786 *158 N.E.2d 557, and Traynoff, 338 Ill.App.3d 949 , 273 Ill.Dec. 691 , 789 N.E.2d 865 .

2003App. 3d at 979-80 , 782 N.E.2d at 932 (in which the Second District recently held that certain actuarial instruments did not satisfy the Frye standard), appeal denied, 206 Ill. 2d 641 (2003).

2003App. 3d at 979-80 , 782 N.E.2d at 932 (in which the Second District recently held that certain actuarial instruments did not satisfy the Frye standard), appeal denied, 206 Ill. 2d 641 (2003).

2022See Fountain, 2016 IL App (1st) 131474, ¶ 57 , citing Simons, 213 Ill. 2d at 531 . ¶ 83 As the record reveals, defendant filed three pretrial motions seeking to preclude the introduction of the historical cell site analysis, with the third one (which is at issue here) requesting a Frye hearing on its admissibility.

2022See Fountain, 2016 IL App (1st) 131474, ¶ 57 , citing Simons, 213 Ill. 2d at 531 . ¶ 83 As the record reveals, defendant filed three pretrial motions seeking to preclude the introduction of the historical cell site analysis, with the third one (which is at issue here) requesting a Frye hearing on its admissibility.

2012See People v. Hickey, 178 Ill.2d 256, 279 , 227 Ill.Dec. 428 , 687 N.E.2d 910 (1997) (upholding, based on Miller, the trial court's denial of a Frye hearing on the product rule); see also People v. Basler, 193 Ill.2d 545, 551 , 251 Ill.Dec. 171 , 740 N.E.2d 1 (2000) ("Where * * * a scientific method has been shown to be generally accepted, a Frye test is no longer necessary each time the State seeks to use evidence obtained by that method.").

2012See People v. Hickey, 178 Ill.2d 256, 279 , 227 Ill.Dec. 428 , 687 N.E.2d 910 (1997) (upholding, based on Miller, the trial court's denial of a Frye hearing on the product rule); see also People v. Basler, 193 Ill.2d 545, 551 , 251 Ill.Dec. 171 , 740 N.E.2d 1 (2000) ("Where * * * a scientific method has been shown to be generally accepted, a Frye test is no longer necessary each time the State seeks to use evidence obtained by that method.").

2022Here, there was no evidence - 20 - of the newness or novel nature of Howe’s methodology, so the Youngs’ obligation to establish its general acceptance was never triggered. ¶ 76 In Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1, 24-25 (2003), the supreme court held that the failure to request a Frye hearing or object to the testimony on that basis resulted in forfeiture of the issue for appellate review.

2022Here, there was no evidence - 20 - of the newness or novel nature of Howe’s methodology, so the Youngs’ obligation to establish its general acceptance was never triggered. ¶ 76 In Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1, 24-25 (2003), the supreme court held that the failure to request a Frye hearing or object to the testimony on that basis resulted in forfeiture of the issue for appellate review.

1994The burden is on the State to prove that the Frye test has been met (People v. Lipscomb (1991), 215 Ill.

1994The burden is on the State to prove that the Frye test has been met (People v. Lipscomb (1991), 215 Ill.