scientific theory principle in Washington

2024Under the Frye test, “evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” Id.

2024Under the Frye standard, “evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984). 8 120 Wn.2d 879, 906 , 846 P.2d 502 (1993) (holding testimony that defendant’s DNA “matched” perpetrator’s was erroneously admitted, in that it was unsupported by valid probability statistics), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Buckner, 133 Wn.2d 63 , 941 P.2d 667 (1997). 13 No. 85289-2-I/14 the context of the total argument.

2021The standard provides that “‘evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.’” State v. Baity, 140 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 991 P.2d 1151 (2000) (quoting State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984)).

2019Under the Frye standard for admissibility, “evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” State v. Baity, 140 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 991 P.2d 1151 (2000) (quoting State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984)).

2020App. 484, 492 , 355 P.3d 355 (2015). “‘The Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community before admitting it into evidence.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 990 (2004)). “‘[T]he core concern . . . is only whether the evidence being offered is based on 8 Fugle cites Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113-14 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.

2018"The 2 No. 75277-4-1/3 Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle 'has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community' before admitting it into evidence." In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003)(internal quotation marks omitted)(quoting In re Pers.

2010State v. Piker, 123 Wn.2d 351, 359 , 869 P.2d 43 (1994). ¶16 Frye held: [W]hile courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently-established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

2010State v. Piker, 123 Wn.2d 351, 359 , 869 P.2d 43 (1994). ¶16 Frye held: [W]hile courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently-established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

2021The standard provides that “‘evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.’” State v. Baity, 140 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 991 P.2d 1151 (2000) (quoting State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984)).

2019Under the Frye standard for admissibility, “evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” State v. Baity, 140 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 991 P.2d 1151 (2000) (quoting State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984)).

2008"The Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle `has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community' before admitting it into evidence." Thorell, 149 Wash.2d at 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (quoting In re Personal Restraint of Young, 122 Wash.2d 1, 56 , 857 P.2d 989 (1993)). "`[T]he core concern . . . is only whether the evidence being offered is based on established scientific methodology.'" Thorell, 149 Wash.2d at 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (quoting Young, 122 Wash.2d at 56 , 857 P.2d 989 ). [16] In his briefing, Post neither cites to any decisio

2008"The Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle `has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community' before admitting it into evidence." Thorell, 149 Wash.2d at 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (quoting In re Personal Restraint of Young, 122 Wash.2d 1, 56 , 857 P.2d 989 (1993)). "`[T]he core concern . . . is only whether the evidence being offered is based on established scientific methodology.'" Thorell, 149 Wash.2d at 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (quoting Young, 122 Wash.2d at 56 , 857 P.2d 989 ). [16] In his briefing, Post neither cites to any decisio

2015Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 593, 600 , 260 P.3d 857 (2011). ¶99 Under Frye, “ ‘evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the *566 relevant scientific community.’” State v. Baity, 140 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 991 P.2d 1151 (2000) (quoting State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984)); State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 255 , 922 P.2d 1304 (1996).

2013In determining if novel scientific evidence satisfies Frye, we perform “a searching review which may extend beyond the record and involve consideration of scientific literature as well as secondary legal authority.” State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 255-56 , 922 P.2d 1304 (1996) (citing State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879, 887-88 , 846 P.2d 502 (1993)). ¶6 Under Frye, “evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984)

2015Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 593, 600 , 260 P.3d 857 (2011). ¶99 Under Frye, “ ‘evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the *566 relevant scientific community.’” State v. Baity, 140 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 991 P.2d 1151 (2000) (quoting State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984)); State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 255 , 922 P.2d 1304 (1996).

2013In determining if novel scientific evidence satisfies Frye, we perform “a searching review which may extend beyond the record and involve consideration of scientific literature as well as secondary legal authority.” State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 255-56 , 922 P.2d 1304 (1996) (citing State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879, 887-88 , 846 P.2d 502 (1993)). ¶6 Under Frye, “evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984)

2013State v. Sipin. 130 Wn.

2013State v. Sipin, 130 Wn.

2024Under the Frye standard, “evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984). 8 120 Wn.2d 879, 906 , 846 P.2d 502 (1993) (holding testimony that defendant’s DNA “matched” perpetrator’s was erroneously admitted, in that it was unsupported by valid probability statistics), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Buckner, 133 Wn.2d 63 , 941 P.2d 667 (1997). 13 No. 85289-2-I/14 the context of the total argument.

2024Under the Frye standard, “evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984). 8 120 Wn.2d 879, 906 , 846 P.2d 502 (1993) (holding testimony that defendant’s DNA “matched” perpetrator’s was erroneously admitted, in that it was unsupported by valid probability statistics), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Buckner, 133 Wn.2d 63 , 941 P.2d 667 (1997). 13 No. 85289-2-I/14 the context of the total argument.

2024State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 746-47 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009).

2024State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 746-47 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009).

2020App. 484, 492 , 355 P.3d 355 (2015). “‘The Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community before admitting it into evidence.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 990 (2004)). “‘[T]he core concern . . . is only whether the evidence being offered is based on 8 Fugle cites Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113-14 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.

2020App. 484, 492 , 355 P.3d 355 (2015). “‘The Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community before admitting it into evidence.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 990 (2004)). “‘[T]he core concern . . . is only whether the evidence being offered is based on 8 Fugle cites Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113-14 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.

2020App. 484, 492 , 355 P.3d 355 (2015). “‘The Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community before admitting it into evidence.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 990 (2004)). “‘[T]he core concern . . . is only whether the evidence being offered is based on 8 Fugle cites Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113-14 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.

2020App. 484, 492 , 355 P.3d 355 (2015). “‘The Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community before admitting it into evidence.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 990 (2004)). “‘[T]he core concern . . . is only whether the evidence being offered is based on 8 Fugle cites Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113-14 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.

2020App. 484, 492 , 355 P.3d 355 (2015). “‘The Frye standard requires a trial court to determine whether a scientific theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community before admitting it into evidence.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wn.2d 724, 754 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 990 (2004)). “‘[T]he core concern . . . is only whether the evidence being offered is based on 8 Fugle cites Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113-14 , 97 S. Ct. 2243 , 53 L.

2015Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 593, 600 , 260 P.3d 857 (2011). ¶99 Under Frye, “ ‘evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the *566 relevant scientific community.’” State v. Baity, 140 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 991 P.2d 1151 (2000) (quoting State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984)); State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 255 , 922 P.2d 1304 (1996).

2015Anderson v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., 172 Wn.2d 593, 600 , 260 P.3d 857 (2011). ¶99 Under Frye, “ ‘evidence deriving from a scientific theory or principle is admissible only if that theory or principle has achieved general acceptance in the *566 relevant scientific community.’” State v. Baity, 140 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 991 P.2d 1151 (2000) (quoting State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713, 719 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984)); State v. Copeland, 130 Wn.2d 244, 255 , 922 P.2d 1304 (1996).

2012State v. Sipin, 130 Wash.App. 403, 414 , 123 P.3d 862 (2005).

1987See State v. Allery, 101 Wn.2d 591 , 682 P.2d 312 (1984) (battered woman syndrome evidence admissible); State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984) (hypnosis evidence inadmissible); State v. Canaday, 90 Wn.2d 808 , 585 P.2d 1185 (1978) (retesting of used Breathalyzer ampuls inadmissible); State v. Woo, 84 Wn.2d 472 , 527 P.2d 271 (1974) (polygraph evidence inadmissible in absence of stipulation by both parties).

1987See State v. Allery, 101 Wn.2d 591 , 682 P.2d 312 (1984) (battered woman syndrome evidence admissible); State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984) (hypnosis evidence inadmissible); State v. Canaday, 90 Wn.2d 808 , 585 P.2d 1185 (1978) (retesting of used Breathalyzer ampuls inadmissible); State v. Woo, 84 Wn.2d 472 , 527 P.2d 271 (1974) (polygraph evidence inadmissible in absence of stipulation by both parties).

1987See State v. Allery, 101 Wn.2d 591 , 682 P.2d 312 (1984) (battered woman syndrome evidence admissible); State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984) (hypnosis evidence inadmissible); State v. Canaday, 90 Wn.2d 808 , 585 P.2d 1185 (1978) (retesting of used Breathalyzer ampuls inadmissible); State v. Woo, 84 Wn.2d 472 , 527 P.2d 271 (1974) (polygraph evidence inadmissible in absence of stipulation by both parties).

1987See State v. Allery, 101 Wn.2d 591 , 682 P.2d 312 (1984) (battered woman syndrome evidence admissible); State v. Martin, 101 Wn.2d 713 , 684 P.2d 651 (1984) (hypnosis evidence inadmissible); State v. Canaday, 90 Wn.2d 808 , 585 P.2d 1185 (1978) (retesting of used Breathalyzer ampuls inadmissible); State v. Woo, 84 Wn.2d 472 , 527 P.2d 271 (1974) (polygraph evidence inadmissible in absence of stipulation by both parties).