Skip to content

State v. Hairston, 820 S.E.2d 590 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018)

Case (cite)
State v. Hairston, 820 S.E.2d 590 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018)
Year
2018
State
North Carolina
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
Other; No error because invited error
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Karen Weimorts
Summary of reasons for ruling
Because the only "unqualified" part of the expert testimony was elicited by Defendant during cross-examination, defendant's challenge to the realibility of the expert testimony on the basis that it was unqualified is moot.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
702; Daubert
Did lower court hold a hearing
Y
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Weimorts
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
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
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

Defendant’s appeal was denied because (1) the issue was not properly preserved; (2) if there is any error, the error was elicited by the defendant and such error cannot prejudice him as a matter of law.