Skip to content

People v. Ferdinand, 229 P. 341 (Cal. 1924)

Case (cite)
People v. Ferdinand, 229 P. 341 (Cal. 1924)
Year
1924
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
N/A
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
N/A
Summary of reasons for ruling
n such prosecution, assuming that expert testimony as to the distance that a certain caliber revolver could be held from an overcoat worn by the deceased at the time he was killed, and, upon such revolver being fired, would produce powder-marks such as appeared upon the garment in question, was material to the issues involved in the case, the rule is that where substantially similar conditions, as between the facts of the case and the experiment, are shown to exist, it is not error to admit such evidence.
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
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/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