Case Title: P. v. McWhorter

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: california

Court: California Supreme Court

Date: 2009-10-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed 10/14/09 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
 ) 
 
 
 ) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
 ) 
 
 
 ) 
S068536 
 
v. 
 ) 
 
 
 ) 
Kern County 
RICHARD ALLEN McWHORTER, 
 ) 
Super. Ct. No. 65352A 
 
 
 ) 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
 ) 
 
 
 ) 
 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
THE COURT: 
 
 
The opinion filed August 6, 2009, and published at 47 Cal.4th 318, is modified as 
follows:  
At page 367, second full paragraph, delete the first sentence and accompanying 
citations reading, “A trial court’s finding that the Kelly foundational requirements have 
not been met is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.  (People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 
Cal.4th 774, 805; People v. Venegas (1998) 18 Cal.4th 47, 93.),” and substitute the 
following: “As we earlier observed, Kelly requires as a foundational matter that the 
reliability of a new scientific technique be established by a properly qualified expert.  
Such expert’s qualifications are subject to review for abuse of discretion.  (People v. 
Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d, 932, 971.)  We conclude on this record that the trial court did 
not abuse its discretion in excluding Perle’s expert opinion testimony.” 
The modification does not affect the judgment.