Skip to content

Crawford v. Commonwealth, 45 S. W. (2d) 824 (Ky. 1932)

Case (cite)
Crawford v. Commonwealth, 45 S. W. (2d) 824 (Ky. 1932)
Year
1932
State
Kentucky
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
Error to Admit; Remand for Hearing
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Howell, Waird
Summary of reasons for ruling
It appears that the witnesses Howell and Waird qualified as experts on firearms, or as "ballistic experts" in the sense in which that term is used in the record. However, in the absence of proof to show a conspiracy or to connect appellant in any way with the possession, use, or control of the gun and bullets, their evidence relative thereto is incompetent as to him.
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
Y
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Howell, Waird
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
N/A
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
Y
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