Skip to content

Montague v. State, 2016 WL 112378 (Tex. App. 2016)

Case (cite)
Montague v. State, 2016 WL 112378 (Tex. App. 2016)
Year
2016
State
Texas
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 Story
Summary of reasons for ruling
The court found the expert's testimony sufficient reliable (so even if no Daubert hearing was an error it was not reversable), because the underlying toolmark identification theory is reliable and the expert's testimony did not directly implicate the defendant.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Tex. 702
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
Limiting testimony ruling
N
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
N/A
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
Y (noting that "expert ballistics testimony has long been allowed by courts")
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
Y
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N

Notes

in this case the expert did not link the casings & bullets found at the crime scene to a specific weapon (because no gun was submitted to him for analysis), he merely testified that they were fired from the same weapon

 

This court noted that the expert’s past experience testifying in courts cuts in favor of this expert’s current testimony being admissible.