Skip to content

King v. State, 89 So.3d 209 (Fl. 2012)

Case (cite)
King v. State, 89 So.3d 209 (Fl. 2012)
Year
2012
State
Florida
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 the expert
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying a Frye hearing on whether firearms identification evidence is admissible when the weapon is not recovered. The court held that the trial court did not err in declining to conduct a Frye hearing because toolmark identification evidence without a weapon is not new or novel. The court cites to cases dating back to 1929 and 1937 admitting firearms identification evidence; and cites to Florida and other state cases that admit firearms identification evidence without the weapon dating back to 1969.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Frye
Did lower court hold a hearing
N
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
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
N (court held no Frye hearing was necessary)
Limiting testimony ruling
N
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
N/A
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
Y
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