Skip to content

People v. Clark, 24 P. 313 (Cal. 1890)

Case (cite)
People v. Clark, 24 P. 313 (Cal. 1890)
Year
1890
State
California
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
Charles Yates
Summary of reasons for ruling
When there is a material inquiry as to the distance of the deceased from the defendant at the time of the homicide, as bearing upon the question whether deceased was near enough to strike the defendant, and whether the shooting was in self-defense, and it appears in evidence that no powder-marks were found upon the clothing or body of the deceased, it is proper to allow expert testimony for the prosecution as to the farthest distance at which clothing could or would be powder-marked with a rifle such as was used by defendant.
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/A
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Charles Yates
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