Skip to content

State v. Stallings, 2009 WL 1192805 (N.C. App. 2009)

Case (cite)
State v. Stallings, 2009 WL 1192805 (N.C. App. 2009)
North Carolina
Type of proceeding
Type of claim
Type of claim (second claim)
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
What was the ruling?
Correct to Admit
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Neil Moran
Summary of reasons for ruling
"Defendant argues that (1) Agent Morin's testimony exceeded the scope of his expertise because he offered opinion as to the proximity of the shotgun blast to Medlin's body, and (2) Agent Morin's testimony was speculative because his involvement with the ballistics testing purportedly was limited to re-doing the microscopic examination done by another agent, Agent Trocum." Court held the experts education, training, and experience in both firearms identification and testifying as an expert qualified him as an expert and that he supported his conclusions through conducting independent tests.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
Rule 702
Second standard
Did lower court hold a hearing
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
Frye Ruling
Limiting testimony ruling
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
Ruling on qualifications of expert
Ruling on 702(a) – the expert will help / assist the jury
Ruling on 702(b) – the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
Ruling on 702(c) – the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case


Not much analysis here, the court just lists a series of 11 factors that supported their conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony, but those factors are mostly just a list of facts. They did not approach reliability at all.