Skip to content

State v. Allen, 2017 WL 4974768 (Ct. App. La. 2017)

Case (cite)
State v. Allen, 2017 WL 4974768 (Ct. App. La. 2017)
Year
2017
State
Louisiana
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
Patrick Lane
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant argues that he was erroneously denied a Daubert hearing challenging the firearms identification methodology in light of the PCAST report which came out 3 days before trial. The court holds that there was no error to admit this testimony. The defendant had the opportunity to cross the experts and ask about the PCAST report, the experts were qualified, and this type of testimony is widely accepted in courts that have found the method to be reliable.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Daubert; La. C.E. 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)
PCAST
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 (but relies on federal cases)
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
Reliability
Ruling on qualifications of expert
Y
Ruling on 702(a) – the expert will help / assist the jury
Y
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