Opinion ID: 1694698
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Testimony of Fire Experts.

Text: Davlin asserts that the district court erred in admitting into evidence the opinions of the fire investigators Scurto and Nehe. He argues that their opinions as to the cause and nature of the fire were not admissible because the fire investigation methodology they used was not valid in the abstract and was not applied in a reliable manner. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of Scurto and Nehe. We note first that the State argues that law-of-the-case doctrine bars consideration of the issue in this appeal because the issue of admissibility of Scurto's and Nehe's testimony was decided against Davlin in the appeal from the prior trial. However, because an expert's testimony and opinions may vary from one trial to the next, we determine that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not necessarily preclude a foundational challenge to an expert's testimony in a retrial. We further note that in Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215, 631 N.W.2d 862 (2001), we adopted the standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and ordered that such standards be applied prospectively for trials commencing on or after October 1, 2001. The Daubert / Schafersman standards were not applicable in Davlin's first trial which commenced in March 2000, State v. Davlin, 263 Neb. 283, 639 N.W.2d 631 (2002), but were applicable in the retrial which commenced in January 2005. We therefore consider the district court's decision of the Daubert / Schafersman challenge to the expert testimony presented at retrial. [12,13] The standard for reviewing the admissibility of expert testimony is abuse of discretion. State v. Mason, 271 Neb. 16, 709 N.W.2d 638 (2006). An expert's opinion is ordinarily admissible under Neb. Evid. R. 702, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-702 (Reissue 1995), if the witness (1) qualifies as an expert, (2) has an opinion that will assist the trier of fact, (3) states his or her opinion, and (4) is prepared to disclose the basis of that opinion on cross-examination. Mason, supra . When the opinion involves scientific or specialized knowledge, this court held in Schafersman, supra, that we will apply the principles of Daubert, supra . Under our recent Daubert / Schafersman jurisprudence, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure the evidentiary relevance and reliability of an expert's opinion. This gatekeeping function entails a preliminary assessment whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is valid and whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. Schafersman, supra . [14] A trial court's evaluation of the admissibility of expert opinion testimony is essentially a four-step process. Mason, supra . The court must first determine whether the witness is qualified to testify as an expert by reference to his or her knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education. If it is necessary for the court to conduct a Daubert analysis, then the court must determine whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the expert testimony is scientifically valid and reliable. To aid the court in its evaluation, the court may consider several factors, including but not limited to whether the reasoning or methodology has been tested and has general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. Once the reasoning or methodology has been found to be reliable, the court must determine whether the methodology was properly applied to the facts in issue. In making this determination, the court may examine evidence to determine whether the methodology was properly applied and whether the protocols were followed to ensure that the tests were performed properly. Finally, the court determines whether the probative value of the expert evidence and the opinions related thereto are substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, as required under Neb. Evid. R. 403, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 1995). See Mason, supra . The district court in this case noted that as to both Scurto and Nehe, Davlin did not challenge their individual qualifications, nor did he challenge the scientific validity or reliability of the methodology they employed. Instead, Davlin's challenge was to whether the methodology was applied in a reliable manner. The court noted that Scurto and Nehe both generally followed the guidelines set forth in the National Fire Protection Association's publication No. 921 (NFPA 921). The court noted that although neither Scurto nor Nehe rigidly followed the guidelines of NFPA 921, such guidelines were intended as a model, and that Scurto's and Nehe's deviations did not affect the reliability of their opinions. The district court found that a reasonable basis existed for Scurto's and Nehe's opinions as to the origin of the fire and as to whether the fire was intentionally set. The court did not find a reasonable basis for, and therefore did not allow, Scurto's opinion as to the duration of the fire. On appeal, Davlin criticizes the methodology followed by Scurto and Nehe as well as their application of such methodology. The district court noted that Scurto and Nehe generally followed the guidelines of NFPA 921. As we have recently noted, NFPA 921 has been accepted as a valid and reliable methodology. See Perry Lumber Co. v. Durable Servs., 271 Neb. 303, 710 N.W.2d 854 (2006). Davlin does not appear to have challenged the scientific validity and reliability of the methodology set forth by NFPA 921 at the trial level, and nothing in the record calls such validity and reliability into question. As we noted in Perry Lumber Co., the Daubert and Schafersman standards do not require that courts ''reinvent the wheel each time that evidence is adduced,'' 271 Neb. at 311, 710 N.W.2d at 861, and because Davlin did not present evidence to call the methodology into question, a Daubert analysis of the methodology itself was not necessary in this case. Rather than challenging the methodology, Davlin challenged Scurto's and Nehe's application of such methodology. The district court in this case thoroughly reviewed the procedures used by Scurto and Nehe and, as noted above, found that a reasonable basis existed for their opinions as to the origin of the fire and as to whether the fire was intentionally set. Although Davlin asserts that Scurto and Nehe failed to properly follow certain aspects of the NFPA 921 methodology, our review of the district court's consideration of procedures followed by Scurto and Nehe leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that they had reasonable bases for the opinions the court allowed them to give and that the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by admitting the opinion testimony of Scurto and Nehe. We reject this assignment of error.