Skip to content

Evans v. Commonwealth, 19 S.W.2d 1091 (Ct. App. Ky. 1929)

Case (cite)
Evans v. Commonwealth, 19 S.W.2d 1091 (Ct. App. Ky. 1929)
Year
1929
State
Kentucky
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
Calvin H. Goddard
Summary of reasons for ruling
The court held that the ballistic expert's testimony was admissible opinion testimony, not fact testimony, and that the commonwealth's reference to the "fatal bullet" did not mislead the jury. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to examine bullets under a microscope.
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
Goddard
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