Opinion ID: 1158206
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assisting the Trier of Fact

Text: In this case, the Court of Appeals correctly noted that the central concern addressed by the Frye test is that the method employed by the expert be scientifically valid  that it can accurately determine what it is supposed to determine. The Court of Appeals also cogently reasoned that if the scientific method is not valid, testimony relating the conclusions reached by the method can hardly `assist the trier of fact.' The problem that we perceive with the Frye test is that the scientific method underlying the expert's testimony need not be generally accepted to accurately determine what it purports to prove. Id., at 1235. Thus, the pertinent inquiry must focus on the proof of reliability of the scientific technique or method upon which the expert testimony is premised. See Coleman, 104 N.M. at 503, 723 P.2d at 974; Beachum, 97 N.M. at 688, 643 P.2d at 252. This principle is not foreign to our jurisprudence. Reliability and relevancy are inextricably linked; once the technique is shown to be reliable it is relevant to prove what it purports to prove. Simon Neustadt Family Ctr., Inc. v. Bludworth, 97 N.M. 500, 504, 641 P.2d 531, 535 (Ct.App. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Melnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 106 N.M. 726, 728, 749 P.2d 1105, 1107, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 822, 109 S.Ct. 67, 102 L.Ed.2d 44 (1988). This reasoning implicitly recognizes that relevancy under Rule 401 encompasses two principles: materiality and probative value. See McCormick, § 185 at 773. In this context, relevance is another way of referring to probative value, sometimes referred to as logical relevance. See id., at 775. The Court of Appeals, however, incorrectly equated testimony that misleads or confuses the jury with testimony that does not assist the trier of fact, although in an intuitive sense that may be true. [C]onfusion of the issues or misleading the jury are considerations under Rule 403, not Rule 702. To reiterate, the proper inquiry under Rule 702 is whether the subject of the expert's testimony is grounded in valid, objective science, that is scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, and whether the underlying scientific technique or method is reliable enough to prove what it purports to prove, that is probative, so that it will assist the trier of fact.