Skip to content

Timothy v. State, 30 So. 339 (Ala. 1900)

Case (cite)
Timothy v. State, 30 So. 339 (Ala. 1900)
Year
1900
State
Alabama
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
Error to Admit, Remand
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identificaiton (gun powder marks)
Defense or Prosecution Expert
Prosecution
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
Laclase of Antwerp, Dr. Balch of Albany
Summary of reasons for ruling
On appeal, the court held that the trial court erred in allowing the excerpt from the work on medical jurisprudence to be read in evidence to the jury. If the excerpt had been about medicine, it could have been admissible. However, the excerpt did not pertain to the science of medicine or surgery. Further, the opinions were not admissible because the persons giving them were not shown to be experts on powder marks and they were not sworn by the jury
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
Laclase, Balch
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
N/A
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
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
N
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N

Notes