Skip to content

State v. Griffin, 834 S.E.2d 435 (N.C.Ct.App. 2019)

Case (cite)
State v. Griffin, 834 S.E.2d 435 (N.C.Ct.App. 2019)
Year
2019
State
North Carolina
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
Elizabeth Fields
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant appealed on the basis that the expert testimony did not satisfy the reliability prone of NC Rule of Evidence 702. The appellate court rejected the argument reasoning that the defendant had "severly misrepresnt[ed] [the expert's] opinion testimony by briefly summarizing a few lines of testimony while omitting the bulk of [it]" and based the argument on the "unsupported and conclusory allegation" that the testimony failed to satisfy Daubert.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
NC Rule 702; Daubert (McGrady)
Did lower court hold a hearing
N/A
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
Y
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 (overall reliability)
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
Y
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
Y

Notes

Not a particularly interesting case. Defendant’s argument was pretty conclusory/lacked substantive support.

 

“Fields explained that, for firearms examinations in general, there is an accepted error rate of one percent, and that she does not yet have an error rate because, based on her proficiency test and her examinations that are reviewed by another examiner, she has not yet made an error. ”

 

Note: case contains extensive quotes from the expert’s testimony