Skip to content

Hughes v. State, 148 S.W. 543 (Tenn. 1912)

Case (cite)
Hughes v. State, 148 S.W. 543 (Tenn. 1912)
Year
1912
State
Tennessee
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 identificaiton (gun powder marks)
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
St. George Richardson
Summary of reasons for ruling
The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence in chief to be admitted in rebuttal, that improper remarks of a spectator or the prosecutor were not grounds for a new trial where no prejudice was shown, that the rule excluding witnesses during trial did not include either rebuttal witnesses or the detective attached to the office of the State's prosecutor to whom was charged with the duty of assisting in the preparation of the case, and that the evidence of experiments with the pistol used in the killing as to powder burns was competent.
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
Richardson
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
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

Not so much ruling on qualifications of expert witnesses as much as on”experiments, when made under the proper test conditions, are competent evidence”