Opinion ID: 2623217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Colorado

Text: Before reaching the relative merits of Frye and Rule 702 for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence, we review our previous treatment of these standards in Colorado. The Frye standard was first adopted in Colorado in People v. Anderson, 637 P.2d at 358. In Anderson, this court held that polygraph results and the testimony of polygraph examiners were per se inadmissible in a criminal trial because the scientific theory or technique of the polygraph was not sufficiently advanced to permit its use at trial as competent evidence of credibility. Id. We limited the applicability of Frye, however, in People v. Hampton, 746 P.2d 947, 951 (Colo.1987), where we applied CRE 702, rather than Frye, to determine the admissibility of rape trauma syndrome evidence. There, we reasoned that Frye was only applicable to novel scientific devices and processes involving the manipulation of physical evidence, and that Frye had only been applied in Colorado to polygraph tests. Id. at 950-51. Thus, we held that CRE 702, rather than Frye, governed the admission of testimony regarding rape trauma syndrome. Id. Similarly, in Campbell v. People, 814 P.2d 1, 7 (Colo.1991), we applied CRE 702, rather than Frye, in determining whether eyewitness identification evidence should be admitted. In that case, we explicitly held that Frye was only applicable to cases involving novel scientific devices or processes involving the evaluation of physical evidence. Id. at 8. Because no such scientific device or process was at issue in Campbell, we held that CRE 702's more liberal standard for admissibility should have been applied to the eyewitness identification evidence. Id. We first addressed the admissibility of DNA evidence in Colorado in Fishback v. People , where we held that DNA evidence, unlike the evidence at issue in Hampton and Campbell, is precisely the sort of scientific evidence which requires application of the Frye test. 851 P.2d at 890. In concluding that the Frye test governed our inquiry, we reasoned that the highly technical and sophisticated techniques involved in DNA typing, and its relative novelty at the time, qualified it as a novel scientific process involving the evaluation of physical evidence. Id. We also held that general acceptance of both the underlying theory or principle, and of the techniques used to apply that principle was required under Frye. Id. at 891. Applying this standard, we concluded that the theory underlying DNA typing, the techniques employed in RFLP analysis, and the statistical techniques employed in that case were generally accepted among the relevant scientific communities. Id. at 892-93. In Lindsey v. People , we again considered the admissibility of DNA evidence in Colorado courts. 892 P.2d at 281. At issue in that case was the statistical method used to analyze DNA results. Id. at 285. Although we acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court had abandoned Frye 's general acceptance test in Daubert, we concluded that we were not bound by Daubert 's non-constitutional construction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. at 288. Thus, we applied Frye, as interpreted in Fishback, to hold that the DNA statistical frequency analysis employed in that case was generally accepted. Id. at 288-95. In doing so, we noted that general acceptance could be considered broadly to mean accepted in a reasonably inclusive manner, and including a consideration of rulings from other jurisdictions and the general state of science. Id. at 289. We expressly declined, however, to evaluate the relative merits of Frye and CRE 702 in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence, noting that the issue was not before us in that case. Id. at 288. In Brooks v. People, 975 P.2d 1105, 1106 (Colo.1999), we declined to apply either Frye or Daubert to the determination as to whether testimony on the subject of scent tracking evidence was admissible. In doing so, we reasoned that the evidence in question did not involve the type of scientific devices, processes, or theories that are properly subject to Frye scrutiny. Id. at 1111-12. We were also unwilling to apply Daubert for the first time in that case, because we found that the scent-tracking evidence was experience-based specialized knowledge that was not dependent on scientific explanation, remarking that Daubert itself limited its holding to the scientific realm. Id. at 1113; see Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590 n. 8, 113 S.Ct. 2786. We noted that the decision in Kumho applied Daubert to technical and other specialized knowledge and that it provided that the Daubert factors were not exclusive. However, we opined that it was preferable to avoid debating whether or to what extent Daubert was applicable and held instead that CRE 702 and CRE 403 governed our determination as to whether the experience-based knowledge at issue in that case was admissible. Brooks, 975 P.2d at 1115. A review of our previous treatment of Frye indicates that we have not fully endorsed its general acceptance standard as the appropriate test for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence in Colorado. After initially adopting Frye in the context of Anderson, which, like Frye, concerned the admissibility of polygraph evidence, we later limited its applicability in Hampton, 746 P.2d at 951, and in Campbell, 814 P.2d at 7, to novel scientific devices or processes involving the evaluation of physical evidence. Although we later applied Frye in both Fishback and Lindsey to determine the admissibility of DNA evidence, we did so without evaluating the relative merits of Frye and CRE 702. [5] In Brooks, we applied the rules of evidence, specifically Rules 702 and 403, rather than Daubert or Frye to determine the admissibility of experience-based scent-tracking evidence. 975 P.2d at 1106. In order to determine whether the DNA evidence derived from the multiplex technique at issue here was properly barred, we must first address the proper standard governing the admissibility of scientific evidence in Colorado. Because we have never addressed the relative merits of Frye and CRE 702, we now undertake that analysis in an effort to clearly set forth the standard for admitting scientific evidence in Colorado. [6] Proponents of Frye 's general acceptance test argue that it insulates juries from unreliable evidence that has not yet been found reliable by a sufficient number of experts. Joseph G. Petrosinelli, Note, The Admissibility of DNA Typing: A New Methodology, 79 Geo. L.J. 313, 317 (1990). Another justification for the Frye test is that it provides a method by which courts can assess the reliability of novel scientific expert testimony. United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1235 (3d Cir.1985). Finally, proponents of Frye also argue that the general acceptance test safeguards against the possible prejudicial effects of testimony based upon questionable scientific evidence. Id. Frye 's general acceptance test has also, however, been heavily criticized on several grounds. Lawrence B. Ebert, Frye after Daubert: The Role of Scientists in Admissibility Issues as Seen through Analysis of the DNA Profiling Cases, The University of Chicago Law School Rountable, 219 (1993); Petrosinelli, supra, at 318; Paul C. Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 Colum.L.Rev. 1197, 1208-23 (1980). Generally, critics have been concerned with Frye 's vagueness and its conservatism. Downing, 753 F.2d at 1236. Commentators have found vagueness and ambiguity under Frye in determining, for example, (1) precisely what must be generally accepted, (2) the relevant scientific community, (3) how much agreement constitutes general acceptance, and (4) the extent to which Frye applies. Ebert, supra, at 225; Petrosinelli, supra, at 320; Giannelli, supra, at 1208-23. Such ambiguity yields inconsistent results and creates uncertainty in decision-making. Fishback, 851 P.2d at 896-97 (Mullarkey, J., concurring in the result only). [7] Furthermore, while some critics have argued that the Frye inquiry is too malleable, [8] others have concluded that the Frye standard is too rigid and that it unduly restricts the admission of probative evidence from a jury's consideration. See, e.g., Downing, 753 F.2d at 1236-37 (noting that some have argued that under Frye, courts may be required to exclude much probative and reliable information from the jury's consideration, thereby unnecessarily impeding the truth-seeking function of litigation); United States v. Sample, 378 F.Supp. 44, 53 (E.D.Pa.1974) (noting that general acceptance is a proper requirement for taking judicial notice of scientific facts, but should not be a criterion for the admissibility of scientific evidence); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 882 P.2d 321, 330 (1994) (acknowledging that a reliable, readily provable technique could remain unknown and untested by the relevant scientific community, thus delaying its use in the courtroom). We agree that Frye 's rigidity may exclude evidence with strong support within the community but that may fall short of general acceptance under Frye. Fishback, 851 P.2d at 897 (Mullarkey, J., concurring in the result only); Lindsey, 892 P.2d at 296 (Mullarkey, J., concurring in the result only). We also find that this rigidity is ill-suited for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence, which, by its nature, is ever-evolving. Under Frye, once a scientific principle or discovery becomes generally accepted, it forever remains accepted, despite improvements or other developments in scientific technologies. Fishback, 851 P.2d at 897 (Mullarkey, J., concurring in the result only); Lindsey, 892 P.2d at 296 (Mullarkey, J., concurring in the result only). Conversely, because it will take time for any scientific technique to become generally accepted, the Frye test restricts the admissibility of reliable evidence that may not yet qualify as generally accepted under Frye. Brooks, 975 P.2d at 1112 (noting that Frye fails to address the tough questions that arise on the cutting edge of science, [in that it] requires that the courts wait until science itself determines the validity of the scientific proposition in question.); Downing, 753 F.2d at 1236-37; Petrosinelli, supra, at 320 (describing this problem with the Frye test as a cultural lag). Thus, we conclude that Frye 's general acceptance test, particularly when viewed rigidly, is unsuitable as the sole dispositive standard for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence in Colorado. [9] We therefore hold that the rules of evidence, particularly CRE 702 [10] and CRE 403, represent a better standard, because their flexibility is consistent with a liberal approach that considers a wide range of issues. See Downing, 753 F.2d at 1237 (noting that the language of Rule 702, the spirit of the rules of evidence, and the problems with applying Frye suggest the appropriateness of a more flexible approach to the admissibility of ... scientific evidence). The focus of a Rule 702 inquiry is whether the scientific evidence proffered is both reliable and relevant. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589, 113 S.Ct 2786; see Brooks, 975 P.2d at 1114 (holding that under CRE 702, evidence that is reasonably reliable and that will assist the trier of fact should be admitted). In determining whether the evidence is reliable, a trial court should consider (1) whether the scientific principles as to which the witness is testifying are reasonably reliable, and (2) whether the witness is qualified to opine on such matters. Brooks, 975 P.2d at 1114. In determining whether the evidence is relevant, a trial court should consider whether the testimony would be useful to the jury. Id. A trial court's reliability inquiry under CRE 702 should be broad in nature and consider the totality of the circumstances of each specific case. Brooks, 975 P.2d at 1114 (noting that the relevant factors applicable to a CRE 702 inquiry will likely vary depending on the particular subject matter at hand); Campbell, 814 P.2d at 7-8 (holding that the trial court retains its broad discretion to evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether the testimony in question would assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue); see also Kumho, 526 U.S. at 150, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (holding that a trial court's gatekeeping inquiry under Rule 702 must be tied to the facts of a particular case). Given the flexible, fact-specific nature of the inquiry, we decline to mandate that a trial court consider any particular set of factors when making its determination of reliability. Instead, we hold that the CRE 702 inquiry contemplates a wide range of considerations that may be pertinent to the evidence at issue. Downing, 753 F.2d at 1238 (The reliability inquiry that we envision is flexible and may turn on a number of considerations, in contrast to the process of `nose-counting' that would appear to be compelled by a careful reading of Frye. ). By way of illustration, however, we recite here the wide range of issues other courts have considered when making a Rule 702 determination. For example, in Daubert, the Court articulated the following nonexclusive list of general observations that a trial court might consider: (1) whether the technique can and has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the scientific technique's known or potential rate of error, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) whether the technique has been generally accepted. 509 U.S. at 593-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786. The Third Circuit has articulated yet other considerations: (1) the relationship of the proffered technique to more established modes of scientific analysis; (2) the existence of specialized literature dealing with the technique; (3) the non-judicial uses to which the technique are put; (4) the frequency and type of error generated by the technique; and (5) whether such evidence has been offered in previous cases to support or dispute the merits of a particular scientific procedure. Downing, 753 F.2d at 1238-39. We hold that a trial court making a CRE 702 reliability determination may, but need not consider any or all of these factors, depending on the totality of the circumstances of a given case. A trial court may also consider other factors not listed here, to the extent that it finds them helpful in determining the reliability of the proffered evidence. Our determination that a trial court may, but need not consider the factors listed in Daubert is consistent with the United States Supreme Court's reasoning in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael : [T]he factors identified in Daubert may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert's particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony. 526 U.S. at 150, 119 S.Ct. 1167. The Supreme Court in Kumho further held that: we can neither rule out, nor rule in, for all cases and for all time the applicability of the factors mentioned in Daubert, nor can we now do so for subsets of cases categorized by category of expert or by kind of evidence. Too much depends on the circumstances of the particular case at issue. Id. [11] Such reasoning is also consistent with our previous declination to give any special significance to the Daubert factors, in the context of considering evidence we considered to be experience-based specialized knowledge. Brooks, 975 P.2d at 1114. In Brooks, we held that it was preferable to avoid discussing whether or to what extent a court should apply the Daubert factors, and concluded instead, that the proper focus should be on whether the evidence is reasonably reliable information that will assist the trier of fact. Id. Any concerns that invalid scientific assertions will be admitted under this liberal standard are assuaged by Rule 702's overarching mandate of reliability and relevance. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786. Such concerns are also mitigated by [v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof. Id. at 596, 113 S.Ct. 2786. In addition, a trial court making a CRE 702 determination must apply its discretionary authority under CRE 403 to ensure that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Id.; Campbell, 814 P.2d at 8; Hampton, 746 P.2d at 951 n. 8. Finally, a trial court's CRE 702 determination must be based upon specific findings on the record as to the helpfulness and reliability of the evidence proffered. Brooks, 975 P.2d at 1114; Campbell, 814 P.2d at 8. The trial court must also issue specific findings as to its consideration under CRE 403 as to whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Brooks, 975 P.2d at 1114; Campbell, 814 P.2d at 8. To summarize, we conclude that CRE 702, rather than Frye, represents the appropriate standard for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence. [12] We hold that under this standard, the focus of a trial court's inquiry should be on the reliability and relevance of the scientific evidence, and that such an inquiry requires a determination as to (1) the reliability of the scientific principles; (2) the qualifications of the witness; and (3) the usefulness of the testimony to the jury. We also hold that when a trial court applies CRE 702 to determine the reliability of scientific evidence, its inquiry should be broad in nature and consider the totality of the circumstances of each specific case. In doing so, a trial court may consider a wide range of factors pertinent to the case at bar. The factors mentioned in Daubert and by other courts may or may not be pertinent, and thus are not necessary to every CRE 702 inquiry. In light of this liberal standard, a trial court should also apply its discretionary authority under CRE 403 to ensure that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Finally, we hold that under CRE 702, a trial court must issue specific findings as it applies the CRE 702 and 403 analyses.