Skip to content

Abruquah v. State, 2020 WL 261722 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.)

Case (cite)
Abruquah v. State, 2020 WL 261722 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.)
Year
2020
State
Maryland
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
Correct to Admit
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Scott McVeigh
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant first argued that the court erred in not granting a Frye-Reed hearing because firearms identification testimony is no longer widely accepted. The court disagreed because the trial court took judicial notice that firearms identification remains widely accepted. Second, the defendant argued that the expert should not have been allowed to testify that the bullet came from his gun due to the concerns set for the NAS2008, NAS2009, and PCAST. The court that this court had previously accepted firearms identification testimony, even after the publication of the NAS reports, and that the PCAST report explicitly says that admissibility of this kind of evidence is up to the courts. The court had already limited the experts testimony in line with other courts on this issue.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Frye/Reed; Md. Rule 5-702 (note: Frye/Reed overruled in favor of Daubert in 2020)
Did lower court hold a hearing
Y
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Dr. James Hamby, Torin Suber, Scott McVeigh
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
William Tobin
Discussion of 2009 NAS Report (NAS2009) or PCAST report (PCAST)
NAS2009; PCAST
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
Y (Frye-Reed)
Limiting testimony ruling
N
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
N/A
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
Y
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
N/A
Ruling on qualifications of expert
N
Ruling on 702(a) – the expert will help / assist the jury
N
Ruling on 702(b) – the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
N
Ruling on 702(c) – the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
N
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N

Notes