Skip to content

Willie v. State, 204 So.3d 1268 (Miss. 2016)

Case (cite)
Willie v. State, 204 So.3d 1268 (Miss. 2016)
Year
2016
State
Mississippi
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Evidentiary; Ineffective assistance of counsel
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
Brian McIntire
Summary of reasons for ruling
Defendant argues that expert testimony was reliable because he should not have been allowed to testify to absolute certainty. The court held that because the defendant did not object to the expert's testimony being admitted, the issue was procedurally barred on appeal. Defendant also argued that it was ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to object to the expert's testimony. The court disagreed.
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
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
N
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
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

Note: The concurrence in this case does a thorough analysis of the limitations of firearms identification and finds that not objecting to the expert testifying in terms of absolute certainty was ineffective assistance of counsel.