Court Opinion

ID: 9578891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:49:30.914496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:31.946648
License: Public Domain

CORNISH, Presiding Judge
(concurs in part; dissents in part);
While I am in accord with the decision that the evidence in this case is insufficient to support the verdict of the jury and that the appellant’s demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained, I must respectfully dissent to that part of the opinion dealing with the paraffin test.
The majority observes that this Court has previously held inadmissible the result of “paraffin” tests, citing Born v. State, Okl.Cr., 397 P.2d 924 (1964) and Fowler v. State, Okl.Cr., 512 P.2d 238 (1973), but then expressly overrules both cases and determines the results of such tests should be admitted in evidence in accordance with the concurring opinion in Born v. State, supra. In that concurring opinion Judge Bussey expressed the view that the Dermal Nitrate (Paraffin) Test had attained that degree of reliability as to render its results admissible in evidence, specifically relying upon quoted material from the F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin, October 1935. I cannot subscribe to that view and see no reason to depart from established decisional law in this jurisdiction.
A paraffin test is made, of course, to aid officers, in determining whether a suspected person has recently fired a gun. It consists of a test for nitrate reaction on the persons’ hands, nitrate being the principal ingredient of gunpowder. And, admittedly, any evidence obtained from the test is circumstantial.
Before scientific evidence is admissible, there must be proof that the reliability of the tests used has gained general acceptance. and recognition in the concerned scientific community. While the “paraffin” test may someday become a helpful law enforcement tool, the State has not carried the *218burden of showing the test’s accuracy and general scientific acceptance.
I have reviewed a number of cases from other jurisdictions, including Brooke v. People, 139 Colo. 388, 339 P.2d 993 (1959) and Clarke v. State, 218 Tenn. 259, 402 S.W.2d 863 (1966). I rely on those two cases as grounds for concluding the paraffin test should be inadmissible as unreliable and inconclusive. I am not unaware, however, that there are states holding to the contrary. See People v. Simpson, 5 Mich.App. 479, 146 N.W.2d 828 (1966) and State v. Fields, 434 S.W.2d 507 (Mo.1968).