Skip to content

State v. Hurst, 828 So.2d 1165 (La. Ct. App. 2002)

Case (cite)
State v. Hurst, 828 So.2d 1165 (La. Ct. App. 2002)
Year
2002
State
Louisiana
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Excluded
What was the ruling?
Correct to Exclude
Type of evidence at issue:
Ballistics
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Defense
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Richard Scheirman
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defense called a civil engineer to testify about the difference between types of bullets. Although the witness had gone to ballistics school, the trial court held that he was not a ballistics expert. On appeal, the court confirmed that the witness was not a ballistics expert, stating that "experience alone may be sufficient to qualify a person as an expert," but the witness here did not inspect firearms as an occupation, had not done research on ballistics or bullet size, and did not present evidence that he had ever been qualified as an expert in a criminal case.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Louisiana 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)
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
Y
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