Skip to content

Bond v. State, 925 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)

Case (cite)
Bond v. State, 925 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)
Year
2010
State
Indiana
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:
Fingerprint
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Does not name*
Summary of reasons for ruling
Court finds the ACE-V methodology generally accepted among fingerprint examiners and that expert Klosinski followed ACE-V. Defendant argues the State failed to produce the verifying print examiner, which violates his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. However, the verifier's results were not introduced at trial. Thus, the absent examiner's results were never referenced, and so there is no predicate for a Sixth Amendment confrontation violation.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Rule 702; Daubert
Did lower court hold a hearing
N
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Lacie Klosinski
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
None
Discussion of 2009 NAS Report (NAS2009) or PCAST report (PCAST)
N/A
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
N
Limiting testimony ruling
N
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
N
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
N*
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
5
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

Defendant’s contention is “not that Klosinski was not qualified or that the ACE-V method did not meet the Daubertstandards. The challenge is that the method was not followed AND that Bond was denied the opportunity to confront an essential witness to the ACE-V process.”