Skip to content

Commonwealth v. Best, 62 N.E. 746 (Mass. 1902)

Case (cite)
Commonwealth v. Best, 62 N.E. 746 (Mass. 1902)
Year
1902
State
Massachusetts
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
Does not name
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant objected to the physical bullets and pictures of the bullets admitted into evidence evidence mainly because the conditions of the experiment on the test bullets were not similar to the conditions at the time of the shooting, that the barrel may have rusted between the shooting and test, and that it was fired 3 times which could have increased the leading. The court held that "We see no other way in which the jury could have learned so intelligently how that gun barrel would have marked a lead bullet fired through it, a question of much importance to the case. Not only was it the best evidence *496 attainable but the sources of error suggested were trifling. The photographs avowedly were arranged to bring out the likeness in the marking of the different bullets and were objected to on this further ground. But the jury could correct them by inspection of the originals, if there were other aspects more favorable to the defense. With reference to the bullets found in the body an expert was allowed to testify that they were marked by rust in the same way that they would have been if they had been fired through the rifle found at the farm, and that it took at least several months for the rust that he saw in the rifle to form. It is objected that these were not matters for expert testimony. We see no reason to doubt that the testimony was properly admitted."
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
N/A
Did lower court hold a hearing
N/A
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or 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/A
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
N
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
Y
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

It does not seem like they have an expert testifying along with the pictures of the bullets but were using the pictures to show the jury that the bullets were fired from the same gun. They did have an expert testify that the rust on the bullets were the same as if they had been fired through the specific gun in question.