Skip to content

State v. Jones, 21 P. 265 (Kan. 1889)

Case (cite)
State v. Jones, 21 P. 265 (Kan. 1889)
Year
1889
State
Kansas
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
Defense
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
George B Palmer, AJ McLaughlin
Summary of reasons for ruling
W. was shot and instantly killed by J. There were but two witnesses to the homicide: one, the defendant, who claimed he acted in self-defense, testified he was only seven or eight feet from W. when he discharged the musket; the other, a ten-year-old son of W., said the defendant was more than seventy feet distant. From the wound causing the death of W. it appeared that the shot entered his body within a space of two inches in diameter, except three or four just outside of such space. At the trial the defendant produced a witness who said he was and had been a gunsmith for thirty years; that he had studied and experimented for years to ascertain how far guns and muskets would carry shot compactly, and that he was able to state how far from the musket used a person receiving such a wound as deceased would have been. Held, The witness was qualified as an expert, and the evidence sought to be introduced was competent and material. vW. was shot and instantly killed by J. There were but two witnesses to the homicide: one, the defendant, who claimed he acted in self-defense, testified he was only seven or eight feet from W. when he discharged the musket; the other, a ten-year-old son of W., said the defendant was more than seventy feet distant. From the wound causing the death of W. it appeared that the shot entered his body within a space of two inches in diameter, except three or four just outside of such space. At the trial the defendant produced a witness who said he was and had been a gunsmith for thirty years; that he had studied and experimented for years to ascertain how far guns and muskets would carry shot compactly, and that he was able to state how far from the musket used a person receiving such a wound as deceased would have been. Held, The witness was qualified as an expert, and the evidence sought to be introduced was competent and material. W. was shot and instantly killed by J. There were but two witnesses to the homicide: one, the defendant, who claimed he acted in self-defense, testified he was only seven or eight feet from W. when he discharged the musket; the other, a ten-year-old son of W., said the defendant was more than seventy feet distant. From the wound causing the death of W. it appeared that the shot entered his body within a space of two inches in diameter, except three or four just outside of such space. At the trial the defendant produced a witness who said he was and had been a gunsmith for thirty years; that he had studied and experimented for years to ascertain how far guns and muskets would carry shot compactly, and that he was able to state how far from the musket used a person receiving such a wound as deceased would have been. Held, The witness was qualified as an expert, and the evidence sought to be introduced was competent and material. W. was shot and instantly killed by J. There were but two witnesses to the homicide: one, the defendant, who claimed he acted in self-defense, testified he was only seven or eight feet from W. when he discharged the musket; the other, a ten-year-old son of W., said the defendant was more than seventy feet distant. From the wound causing the death of W. it appeared that the shot entered his body within a space of two inches in diameter, except three or four just outside of such space. At the trial the defendant produced a witness who said he was and had been a gunsmith for thirty years; that he had studied and experimented for years to ascertain how far guns and muskets would carry shot compactly, and that he was able to state how far from the musket used a person receiving such a wound as deceased would have been. Held, The witness was qualified as an expert, and the evidence sought to be introduced was competent and material.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
N/A
Did lower court hold a hearing
N/A
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
N/A
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
Palmer, McLaughlin
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/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
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