Skip to content

State v. Lee, 217 So.3d 1266 (La. Ct. App. 2017)

Case (cite)
State v. Lee, 217 So.3d 1266 (La. Ct. App. 2017)
Year
2017
State
Louisiana
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
Byron Winbush
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant claimed that the state's 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)
Daubert; 702
Did lower court hold a hearing
Y
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Byron Winbush
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
Discussion of 2009 NAS Report (NAS2009) or PCAST report (PCAST)
NAS2009
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)
(reviewed all factors thru the lens of Otero discussion)
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
Y
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
N

Notes

In a 2008 case reviewed by the court State v. Williams (974 So.2d 157), the La. Court emphasized the expert’s documentation of process (what was lacking in the Simmons & Jones case), “the reliability of [the expert’s testimony] is established by the documentation of the process he used to reach his conclusion. . . . The photo shows dozens of striations on both projectiles, and those striations are identical across the groove in the projectiles cut by the rifling in the barrel. Nothing in our review of the testimony and our visual comparison of the photographs of the two projectiles suggests [abuse of discretion].”

 

“To the contrary, even after publication of the NAS Report, courts have addressed, in detail, the reliability of such testimony and ruled it admissible, although to varying degrees of specificity.”