47 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2002In Davis , the Supreme Court applied the Frye standard to DNA evidence to first find that DNA testing is generally accepted in the scientific community. 814 S.W.2d at 602-03 . 2002In Davis , the Supreme Court applied the Frye standard to DNA evidence to first find that DNA testing is generally accepted in the scientific community. 814 S.W.2d at 602-03 . | 7 | 11 |
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences2019The Frye standard was derived from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. 2019The Frye standard was derived from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. | 6 | 14 |
Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hospitalgreen2 sentences2012In this case, after all of Dr. Maddox’s videotape deposition had been shown to the jury, Bondex then attempted to renew its motion to exclude the testimony. "[A] party [cannot] blissfully ignore the requirement to object to evidence based on the Frye doctrine and then ’back-door’ the Frye issues_" Id. 2012In this case, after all of Dr. Maddox’s videotape deposition had been shown to the jury, Bondex then attempted to renew its motion to exclude the testimony. "[A] party [cannot] blissfully ignore the requirement to object to evidence based on the Frye doctrine and then ’back-door’ the Frye issues_" Id. | 6 | 9 |
Alsbach v. Badergreen2 sentences1997Missouri has adopted the Frye rule for determining the admissibility of new scientific techniques, Alsbach v. Bader, 700 S.W.2d 823, 828 (Mo. banc 1985), and continues to follow it. 1997Missouri has adopted the Frye rule for determining the admissibility of new scientific techniques, Alsbach v. Bader, 700 S.W.2d 823, 828 (Mo. banc 1985), and continues to follow it. | 5 | 8 |
State v. Danielsgreen2 sentences2014This case is closer factually to the case in State v. Daniels, 179 S.W.3d 273 (Mo.App.W.D.2005) where the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction based on the admission of [presumptive] testing without a Frye hearing and the state’s improper argument that the tests were proof 11 of the presence of human blood. 2014This case is closer factually to the case in State v. Daniels, 179 S.W.3d 273 (Mo.App.W.D.2005) where the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction based on the admission of [presumptive] testing without a Frye hearing and the state’s improper argument that the tests were proof 11 of the presence of human blood. | 3 | 5 |
State v. Salmongreen2 sentences2005State v. Salmon, 89 S.W.3d 540, 543 (Mo.App. 2005State v. Salmon, 89 S.W.3d 540, 543 (Mo.App. | 3 | 3 |
M.C. v. Yeargingreen2 sentences2003S.D.2000) (noting that section 490.065’s "adoption may create the question if Missouri courts should continue to apply the Frye standard to the admissibility of expert testimony, or if Daubert would be more appropriate,” then applying Frye to the admissibility of expert testimony regarding scientific techniques, and holding that section 490.065 applies to the admissibility of expert testimony regarding non-scientific evidence); M.C. v. Yeargin, 11 S.W.3d 604, 619 (Mo.App. 2003S.D.2000) (noting that section 490.065’s "adoption may create the question if Missouri courts should continue to apply the Frye standard to the admissibility of expert testimony, or if Daubert would be more appropriate,” then applying Frye to the admissibility of expert testimony regarding scientific techniques, and holding that section 490.065 applies to the admissibility of expert testimony regarding non-scientific evidence); M.C. v. Yeargin, 11 S.W.3d 604, 619 (Mo.App. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Stoutgreen2 sentences1998The Missouri Supreme Court has consistently applied only the Frye test to the issue of admission of expert testimony since State v. Stout, 478 S.W.2d 368 (Mo.1972). 1998The Missouri Supreme Court has consistently applied only the Frye test to the issue of admission of expert testimony since State v. Stout, 478 S.W.2d 368 (Mo.1972). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences1995First, defendant acknowledges that this court has held in State v. Davis, 860 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Mo.App.1993), that a Frye hearing on the admissibility of DNA evidence is no longer required, based on State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593, 603 (Mo. banc 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1047 , 112 S.Ct. 911 , 116 L.Ed.2d 812 (1992). 1995First, defendant acknowledges that this court has held in State v. Davis, 860 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Mo.App.1993), that a Frye hearing on the admissibility of DNA evidence is no longer required, based on State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593, 603 (Mo. banc 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1047 , 112 S.Ct. 911 , 116 L.Ed.2d 812 (1992). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Biddlegreen2 sentences2002“The Frye standard was modified by the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Biddle, 599 S.W.2d 182, 191 (Mo.1980), which stated that for scientific evidence to be admitted, ‘wide scientific approval’ of the reliability of the scientific techniques employed is required.” Long, 33 S.W.3d at 642 . 2002“The Frye standard was modified by the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Biddle, 599 S.W.2d 182, 191 (Mo.1980), which stated that for scientific evidence to be admitted, ‘wide scientific approval’ of the reliability of the scientific techniques employed is required.” Long, 33 S.W.3d at 642 . | 2 | 2 |
Schumann v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commissiongreen2 sentences1998Comm’n, 912 S.W.2d 548 , 554 n. 8 (Mo.App.1995), the Supreme Court of Missouri has yet to address whether § 490.065 supplants the Frye test in Missouri as the standard for admission of expert testimony. 6 Since the Supreme Court of Missouri’s decision to adopt the Frye test in Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 5.W.2d 852, 860 (Mo. banc 1993), and the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in La-sky v. Union Electric Co., 936 S.W.2d 797 (Mo.1997) (directing the trial court on remand to follow § 490.065 in evaluating the admission of expert testimony), courts of Missouri have continued to fol 1998Comm’n, 912 S.W.2d 548 , 554 n. 8 (Mo.App.1995), the Supreme Court of Missouri has yet to address whether § 490.065 supplants the Frye test in Missouri as the standard for admission of expert testimony. 6 Since the Supreme Court of Missouri’s decision to adopt the Frye test in Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 5.W.2d 852, 860 (Mo. banc 1993), and the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in La-sky v. Union Electric Co., 936 S.W.2d 797 (Mo.1997) (directing the trial court on remand to follow § 490.065 in evaluating the admission of expert testimony), courts of Missouri have continued to fol | 1 | 2 |
State v. Butlergreen2 sentences2003Counsel pursued this strategy notwithstanding Missouri case law holding that a defendant is not allowed to “blissfully ignore the requirement to object to evidence based on the Frye doctrine and then ‘back-door’ the Frye issues into the [case] under the guise of a sufficiency of the evidence argument.” Id. at 42 . 2003Counsel pursued this strategy notwithstanding Missouri case law holding that a defendant is not allowed to “blissfully ignore the requirement to object to evidence based on the Frye doctrine and then ‘back-door’ the Frye issues into the [case] under the guise of a sufficiency of the evidence argument.” Id. at 42 . | 1 | 2 |
Frye v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See generally Frye v. State, 392 S.W.3d 501 (Mo.App. 2013). 2 Standard of Review Mitts acknowledges she did not preserve her points for appeal and requests plain error review. 2024See generally Frye v. State, 392 S.W.3d 501 (Mo.App. 2013). 2 Standard of Review Mitts acknowledges she did not preserve her points for appeal and requests plain error review. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bassettgreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., J.L.G., 190 A.3d at 464–65; People v. Bassett, 866 N.Y.S.2d 473, 477 (N.Y. 2008) (finding that CSAAS testimony is admissible under the Frye standard); State v. Shore, 814 S.E.2d 464 , 473–74 (N.C. 2019See, e.g., J.L.G., 190 A.3d at 464–65; People v. Bassett, 866 N.Y.S.2d 473, 477 (N.Y. 2008) (finding that CSAAS testimony is admissible under the Frye standard); State v. Shore, 814 S.E.2d 464 , 473–74 (N.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. J.L.G.green2 sentences2019See, e.g., J.L.G., 190 A.3d at 464–65; People v. Bassett, 866 N.Y.S.2d 473, 477 (N.Y. 2008) (finding that CSAAS testimony is admissible under the Frye standard); State v. Shore, 814 S.E.2d 464 , 473–74 (N.C. 2019See, e.g., J.L.G., 190 A.3d at 464–65; People v. Bassett, 866 N.Y.S.2d 473, 477 (N.Y. 2008) (finding that CSAAS testimony is admissible under the Frye standard); State v. Shore, 814 S.E.2d 464 , 473–74 (N.C. | 1 | 1 |
W.R.C. v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Ct. App. 2018) (finding that an expert’s delayed-disclosures testimony was the product of reliable principles and methods); W.R.C. v. State, 69 So. 3d 933, 939 (Ala. Crim. 2019Ct. App. 2018) (finding that an expert’s delayed-disclosures testimony was the product of reliable principles and methods); W.R.C. v. State, 69 So. 3d 933, 939 (Ala. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hightowergreen2 sentences2018See id. 2018See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pondergreen1 sentence2018See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dixongreen2 sentences2017Dixon, 822 N.W.2d 664, 674-75 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012); Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626 , 840 N.E.2d 12 (Mass. 2005); Commonwealth v. Gambora, 457 Mass. 715 , 933 N.E.2d 50, 55-61 (Mass. 2010); Markham v. State, 189 Md.App. 140 , 984 A.2d 262 (2009); Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393, 422 (Ala. Crim. 2017Dixon, 822 N.W.2d 664, 674-75 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012); Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626 , 840 N.E.2d 12 (Mass. 2005); Commonwealth v. Gambora, 457 Mass. 715 , 933 N.E.2d 50, 55-61 (Mass. 2010); Markham v. State, 189 Md.App. 140 , 984 A.2d 262 (2009); Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393, 422 (Ala. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Barber v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Dixon, 822 N.W.2d 664, 674-75 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012); Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626 , 840 N.E.2d 12 (Mass. 2005); Commonwealth v. Gambora, 457 Mass. 715 , 933 N.E.2d 50, 55-61 (Mass. 2010); Markham v. State, 189 Md.App. 140 , 984 A.2d 262 (2009); Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393, 422 (Ala. Crim. 2017Dixon, 822 N.W.2d 664, 674-75 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012); Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626 , 840 N.E.2d 12 (Mass. 2005); Commonwealth v. Gambora, 457 Mass. 715 , 933 N.E.2d 50, 55-61 (Mass. 2010); Markham v. State, 189 Md.App. 140 , 984 A.2d 262 (2009); Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393, 422 (Ala. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Gamboragreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonaghgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Keightleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| McReynolds v. Mindrupgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lovegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Keyser v. Keysergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Whitman's Candies, Inc. v. Pet Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Boehm v. Pernoudgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Long v. Missouri Delta Medical Centergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kleypasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Whitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. McCauleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bray v. Bi-State Development Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Turner v. Fuqua Homes, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Footegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Andrews v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Glover v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Rittgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Telliergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Daubert held “[t]hat the Frye test was displaced by the [Federal] Rules of Evidence.” 509 U.S. at 589 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . 2003Daubert held “[t]hat the Frye test was displaced by the [Federal] Rules of Evidence.” 509 U.S. at 589 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . | 4 | 1995–2003 |
Davis v. Missouri
green
2 sentences1996This Court first addressed the question of the admissibility of DNA evidence in State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593 (Mo. banc 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1047 , 112 S.Ct. 911 , 116 L.Ed.2d 812 (1992), by applying the Frye standard. 1996This Court first addressed the question of the admissibility of DNA evidence in State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593 (Mo. banc 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1047 , 112 S.Ct. 911 , 116 L.Ed.2d 812 (1992), by applying the Frye standard. | 3 | 1993–1996 |
Calloway v. United States
green
2 sentences1996This Court first addressed the question of the admissibility of DNA evidence in State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593 (Mo. banc 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1047 , 112 S.Ct. 911 , 116 L.Ed.2d 812 (1992), by applying the Frye standard. 1996This Court first addressed the question of the admissibility of DNA evidence in State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593 (Mo. banc 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1047 , 112 S.Ct. 911 , 116 L.Ed.2d 812 (1992), by applying the Frye standard. | 2 | 1995–1996 |
State v. Shore
green
2 sentences2019See, e.g., J.L.G., 190 A.3d at 464–65; People v. Bassett, 866 N.Y.S.2d 473, 477 (N.Y. 2008) (finding that CSAAS testimony is admissible under the Frye standard); State v. Shore, 814 S.E.2d 464 , 473–74 (N.C. 2019See, e.g., J.L.G., 190 A.3d at 464–65; People v. Bassett, 866 N.Y.S.2d 473, 477 (N.Y. 2008) (finding that CSAAS testimony is admissible under the Frye standard); State v. Shore, 814 S.E.2d 464 , 473–74 (N.C. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Hoy
green
2 sentences2019As a result, we do not 9 The parties discuss State v. Hoy, 219 S.W.3d 796 , 799 n.2 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (expressing concern about the use of the term “expert” in relation to a “drug -recognition examiner” in front of a jury that could be confused or misled by “the use of this title”), which was decide d when the older Frye standard for the admissibility of expert testimony applied. 2019Id. at 810 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. RYAN N. EVANS
green
2 sentences2018As an initial matter, we note Defendant waived appellate review of the admission of Dr. Case's testimony when trial counsel affirmatively told the trial court that it could forgo holding a Frye hearing and instead rely on the court's finding in State v. Evans , 517 S.W.3d 528 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) in determining the admissibility of Dr. Case's testimony. 2018As an initial matter, we note Defendant waived appellate review of the admission of Dr. Case's testimony when trial counsel affirmatively told the trial court that it could forgo holding a Frye hearing and instead rely on the court's finding in State v. Evans , 517 S.W.3d 528 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) in determining the admissibility of Dr. Case's testimony. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2018Defendant also acknowledged on appeal that the trial court offered him a Frye hearing, but that trial counsel "turned the offer down." Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 2018Defendant also acknowledged on appeal that the trial court offered him a Frye hearing, but that trial counsel "turned the offer down." Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Markham v. State
green
2 sentences2017Dixon, 822 N.W.2d 664, 674-75 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012); Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626 , 840 N.E.2d 12 (Mass. 2005); Commonwealth v. Gambora, 457 Mass. 715 , 933 N.E.2d 50, 55-61 (Mass. 2010); Markham v. State, 189 Md.App. 140 , 984 A.2d 262 (2009); Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393, 422 (Ala. Crim. 2017Dixon, 822 N.W.2d 664, 674-75 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012); Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626 , 840 N.E.2d 12 (Mass. 2005); Commonwealth v. Gambora, 457 Mass. 715 , 933 N.E.2d 50, 55-61 (Mass. 2010); Markham v. State, 189 Md.App. 140 , 984 A.2d 262 (2009); Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393, 422 (Ala. Crim. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Patterson
green
2 sentences2017Dixon, 822 N.W.2d 664, 674-75 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012); Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626 , 840 N.E.2d 12 (Mass. 2005); Commonwealth v. Gambora, 457 Mass. 715 , 933 N.E.2d 50, 55-61 (Mass. 2010); Markham v. State, 189 Md.App. 140 , 984 A.2d 262 (2009); Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393, 422 (Ala. Crim. 2017Dixon, 822 N.W.2d 664, 674-75 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012); Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626 , 840 N.E.2d 12 (Mass. 2005); Commonwealth v. Gambora, 457 Mass. 715 , 933 N.E.2d 50, 55-61 (Mass. 2010); Markham v. State, 189 Md.App. 140 , 984 A.2d 262 (2009); Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393, 422 (Ala. Crim. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Brian J. Dorsey v. State of Missouri
green
2 sentences2017Dorsey, 448 S.W.3d at 297 . 7 The “results of scientific procedures may be admitted only if the procedure is ‘sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.’ ” Id. (quoting Frye, 293 F. at 1014 ). 2017Dorsey, 448 S.W.3d at 297 . 7 The “results of scientific procedures may be admitted only if the procedure is ‘sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.’ ” Id. (quoting Frye, 293 F. at 1014 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Hill green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Garcia v. United States green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Kinder green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Traylor green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| McDonald v. Inland Container Corp. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Chisholm v. Georgia green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Lasky v. Union Electric Co. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Imms v. Clarke green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Sager green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Smith v. Texas green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Roots v. Wainwright green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Zannis v. United States green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Freeman v. United States green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Stemple v. Board of Education green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| New York Mercantile Exchange v. Leist green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.
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.