Skip to content

Pender v. State, 856 S.E.2d 302 (Ga. 2021)

Case (cite)
Pender v. State, 856 S.E.2d 302 (Ga. 2021)
Year
2021
State
Georgia
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary; Due Process
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
No Error due to Harmless Error
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification; ballistics
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
N/A
Summary of reasons for ruling
s gun store, combined with his police and military trianing in firearms, amply supported the trial court's ruling. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's qualification of Beyer as a firearms expert, observing that just because a particular witness has been deemed an expert by a trial court does not mean that adverse cross-examination cannot be vigorous and skeptical.
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
N/A
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
N/A
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
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

While in this appellate opinion there was no ruling on the qualifications of the firearms expert, there was significant discussion of the expert’s qualifications and the peer review process of the methodology they used at the trial level.