Skip to content

Mosley v. State, 194 N.E. 613 (Ct. App. Ohio 1934)

Case (cite)
Mosley v. State, 194 N.E. 613 (Ct. App. Ohio 1934)
Year
1934
State
Ohio
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; ballistics
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Calvin Goddard
Summary of reasons for ruling
Prof. Goddard subjected the weapon and the missiles to a minute and exhaustive examination and testified that as a result of such examination he could say with certainty that the bullets were fired from the revolver which was submitted to him. His testimony shows that he is a man of much experience in that line, covering a period of many years, and his testimony demonstrates clearly that the bullets were fired from this revolver, which is identified beyond question.No objection was made to the admission of this evidence, and none could justly be made. One of the earlier cases relating to this class of evidence is that of Burchett v. State, 35 Ohio App., 463, 467, 172 N. E., 555, a case in which the court, speaking through Mauck, J., considers and affirms the competency and value of the evidence. During recent years new discoveries and methods of reading marks on cartridges, bullets, and the rifling on the inside of the barrels of revolvers, have been made, and the introduction of this kind of evidence has become quite common in cases of this character. The result of reading these marks seems [*557] [***5] to be as certain and valuable in determining the identity of a revolver as finger prints are in identifying a human being.
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
N
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

“No objection was made to the admission of this [firearms identification] evidence, and none could justly be made. One of the earlier cases relating to this class of evidence is that of Burchett v. State, 35 Ohio App. 463, 467, 172 N. E. 555, a case in which the court, speaking through Mauck, J., considers and affirms the competency and value of the evidence. During recent years new discoveries and methods of reading marks on cartridges, bullets, and the rifling on the inside of the barrels of revolvers, have been made, and the introduction of this kind of evidence has become quite common in cases of this character. The result of reading these marks seems *557 to be as certain and valuable in determining the identity of a revolver as fingerprints are in identifying a human being.”