Skip to content

State v. Ash, 108 N.E.3d 1115 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)

Case (cite)
State v. Ash, 108 N.E.3d 1115 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)
Year
2018
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
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Does not name the expert
Summary of reasons for ruling
On trial, the state's expert testified to the consistencies between the damaged bullet found at the crime scene and the testing bullet from the defendant's firearm without opining on the likelihood that the recovered bullet was fired by the said firearm. Defendant contended that the evidence should be excluded because its probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial value. The court disagreed, reasoning that the fact the expert could not conclude with reasonable scientific certainty as to the origin of the recovered bullet goes to the strenghth not the admissibility of the testimony.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Did lower court hold a hearing
Y
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)
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
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
N
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N

Notes

“the fact the balllistics expert could not conclude with reasonable scientific certainty that the defendant’s gun fired the bullet recovered from the victim goes to the weight of the testimony, not its admissbility.”