Opinion ID: 1158206
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: New Mexico Precedent

Text: The Frye test, [6] if not by name then at least in principle, has been a part of New Mexico evidence law since 1952 when this Court affirmed the district court's exclusion of expert opinion testimony that was not reliable or generally approved and accepted by members of the medical profession specializing in psychiatry. State v. Lindemuth, 56 N.M. 257, 271, 243 P.2d 325, 334 (1952). To be admissible, the Court held that the scientific technique or principle about which the expert proposes to testify must be accorded general scientific recognition. Id., at 274, 243 P.2d at 336. This Court first cited and quoted from Frye in State v. Trimble, 68 N.M. 406, 362 P.2d 788 (1961), but the Trimble opinion relied more on the holding in Frye than upon the principle with which we are concerned today. See id., at 407, 362 P.2d at 789 (holding results from polygraph tests inadmissible). The courts of New Mexico have continued to rely upon the Frye test, but like the opinions in Lindemuth and Trimble, the decisions have not indicated what the [ Frye ] standard means functionally. See Leo M. Romero, The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence Under the New Mexico and Federal Rules of Evidence, 6 N.M.L.Rev. 187, 190 (1976). Nevertheless, our courts have continually stated that for expert opinion testimony to be admissible, it would have to be shown that the reliability of underlying scientific principles had been accepted by the scientific community. Montoya v. Metropolitan Court, 98 N.M. 616, 617, 651 P.2d 1260, 1261 (1982) (citing Frye ); see also State v. Gallegos, 104 N.M. 247, 253, 719 P.2d 1268, 1274 (Ct.App. 1986) (proposed area of expertise must have received general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs).