Case (cite)
State v. Onuwor, 2010 WL 4684717 (Ct. App. Ohio 2010)
State v. Onuwor, 2010 WL 4684717 (Ct. App. Ohio 2010)
Year
2010
State
Ohio
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Type of claim (second claim)
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
Nathan Wilson
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant objects to the qualifications of the expert, his testifying to a reasonable degree of certainty, and the reliability of firearms identification. The court notes that no Ohio court has held that expert testimony should be excluded or barred based on using "reasonable degree of ballistic certainty" or "scientific certainty" and declines to exclude the testimony based on that here. They hold that the expert is qualified based on his extensive experience and prior expert testimony. Finally, the court holds that the expert used a widely accepted test to make the identification.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Daubert
Second standard
Rule 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)
Discussion of 2016 PCAST report (PCAST)
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
N
Limiting testimony ruling
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
N
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
N
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
(1); (2); (3); (5)
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
Y
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N
Notes
In this case, Sergeant Willson was a properly qualified expert whose testimony helped the jury understand a matter beyond the knowledge or experience of most lay people, and he employed a widely-accepted and accurate test in doing so. He was properly admitted under Ohio Evid.R. 702, and his comparison testing is a generally accepted method of forensic analysis. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony or in allowing Willson to testify.