Skip to content

State v. Melvern, 72 P. 489 (Wash. 1902)

Case (cite)
State v. Melvern, 72 P. 489 (Wash. 1902)
Year
1902
State
Washington
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 identificaiton (gun powder marks); ballistics
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosection
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Bakeman
Summary of reasons for ruling
Testimony relative to the probable distance at which a revolver was held from the head of deceased when it was discharged by one who had experimented with the revolver for the purpose of ascertaining at what distance powder marks similar to those on the face of deceased would be produced is not expert testimony and therefore would not require that the witness qualify as an expert.
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
Y
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Bakeman
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
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/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

Case holds that the witness’s testimony was acceptable as lay testimony, no need for expert evidence.