Opinion ID: 1651956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Expert Testimony on the Occult

Text: Echols next argues that trial counsel was deficient in failing to ask the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Daubert, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469, to challenge the scientific basis upon which prosecution witness Dale Griffis based his opinion that the killings manifested the trappings of occult and satanic rituals. Echols contends that Griffis's testimony was nothing more than junk science, and that it was not admissible under the test established in Daubert . [8] The trial record reflects that Baldwin's counsel moved in limine to keep Griffis's testimony out of the trial. Echols's counsel did not specifically join Baldwin's motion in limine ; however, the record shows that Price did object to the admission of Griffis's testimony. During the Rule 37 hearing, Price testified that at the beginning of the trial, he did not know exactly what the State's evidence would be concerning the occult. Notwithstanding, he stated that he believed that any alleged link between the murders and the occult was ludicrous. He testified that the State's evidence was so weak in this regard that he was content to rebut it with his own expert testimony, which would show how ludicrous the State's theory was. The record reflects that Price did object to Griffis's testimony and some of the evidence offered by the State, such as writings and a book taken from Echols's room. Ultimately, the defense presented its own witness, who was also an expert in the occult. Based upon the foregoing, Echols has not met his burden of showing (1) that counsel was deficient for failing to specifically attempt to keep Griffis's testimony out under Daubert , or (2) that but for counsel's error in this regard, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different. As this court observed in the direct appeal, there was substantial evidence to convict Echols of the crimes, most significant of which were his statements that were overheard by two girls that he had killed the three boys, and that I'm going to kill two more, and I already have one of them picked out. Echols I, 326 Ark. at 938, 936 S.W.2d at 518. Moreover, Echols made a Daubert -type argument on appeal, that there was no evidence to show that the field of satanism or occultism is generally accepted in the scientific community. This court rejected the argument because the trial court had not allowed Griffis's testimony as proof of the field's acceptance in the scientific community, but rather, as proof of the motive for committing the murders. This court held that the evidence was relevant to show motive pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 404(b). See Echols I, 326 Ark. 917, 936 S.W.2d 509. Accordingly, we affirm on this point.