Opinion ID: 1944931
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of IQ Test Scores

Text: In the penalty phase, defense counsel sought to exclude old IQ test scores from Rodgers's Department of Corrections records. The defense contended they were inadmissible under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923). The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Rodgers's arguments concerned the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence. Defense counsel then preemptively admitted the scores through the testimony of Dr. Mings. We note initially that Rodgers preserved his claim despite admitting the evidence himself. See Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So.2d 197, 203 (Fla.2001) ([O]nce a trial court makes an unequivocal ruling admitting evidence over a movant's motion in limine, the movant's introduction of that evidence does not waive the error for appellate review.). [6] To obtain relief, however, Rodgers must demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion. See Dessaure v. State, 891 So.2d 455, 466 (Fla.2004) (stating that abuse of discretion standard applies to review of the admissibility of evidence). The Frye test is used to determine the admissibility of expert scientific opinion by ascertaining whether new or novel scientific principles on which an expert's opinion is based have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. Frye, 293 F. at 1014; see also Castillo v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 854 So.2d 1264, 1268 (Fla.2003). However, Rodgers objected to admission of the test scores based, for example, on the absence of information about actual testing conditions. He also argued that one of the scores resulted from a Beta test, a test Rodgers admits has been used for decades, but which he claimed is used for screening, not ascertaining an individual's IQ for mental retardation purposes. We agree with the trial court that these objections are matters of weight, not admissibility, and do not implicate Frye. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodgers's motion.