Court Opinion

ID: 9743676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:40:12.48605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:29.741755
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
concurring.
It is not surprising that the majority opinion appears to presume that Indiana follows the general acceptance test for admissibility of novel scientific evidence established in Frye v. United States (D.C.Cir.1923), 293 F. 1013. In their briefs to this Court, the appellant assumes the applicability of Frye, and the State notes that the Frye test has been widely criticized, but argues that the DNA evidence satisfied not only a general relevancy standard under the Federal Rules of Evidence, but also the more stringent Frye test.
However, the Frye general acceptance test has mot been conclusively adopted as a prerequisite to expert testimony in Indiana. While at least two Indiana cases have chosen to apply the Frye reliability analysis: Peterson v. State (1983), Ind., 448 N.E.2d 673; Cornett v. State (1983), Ind., 450 N.E.2d 498; several others have not. This Court expressly rejected a court-determined reliability factor as a prerequisite to the admissibility of expert opinion in Boarman v. State (1987), Ind., 509 N.E.2d 177:
The determination of whether an expert witness is qualified to give an opinion is also within the trial court's discretion. Rowan v. State (1982), Ind., 431 N.E.2d *1306805, 816. Any alleged lack of the evidence's reliability can be brought cut on cross-examination. Id. As long as the expert is otherwise qualified, the question of reliability goes to the weight of the evidence and not its competency. Id. * * * # La %
We think the jury was in the best position to determine the reliability of the expert's testimony....
509 N.E.2d at 181-82. Rejecting a claim that there was an absence of scientific basis upon which to base an expert opinion, this Court in Rowan v. State (1982), Ind., 431 N.E.2d 805, 816, stated:
The alleged lack of reliability can be brought out on cross-examination, and as long as the expert is otherwise qualified, goes to the weight of the evidence and not to its competency.
In Fox v. State (1987), Ind., 506 N.E.2d 1090, we omitted any reference to demonstrated reliability by general scientific acceptance and stated that only two requirements are required for expert opinion testimony. -
First, the subject matter of the expert's opinion must be so distinctly related to some science, profession, business or occupation as to be beyond the knowledge of the average lay-person. Second, the witness must have sufficient skill, knowledge or experience in the field to make it appear that the witness' opinion or inference will aid the trier of fact in the search for truth.
In recent years, courts in at least thirty jurisdictions have limited, avoided, or rejected the Frye requirement. See McCormick on Evidence § 208, at 607-08 nn. 18-23 (E. Cleary 3d ed. 1984); Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 Colum.L Rev. 1197 (1980). Noting that a "drumbeat of criticism of the Frye test provides the background music to the movement away from the general acceptance test," McCormick recommends "that the traditional standards of relevancy and the need for expertise- and nothing more-should govern," because:
[ilt avoids the difficult problems of defining how "general" the general acceptance must be, of discerning exactly what it is that must be accepted, and of determining the "particular field" to which the scientific evidence belongs and in which it must be accepted. General scientific acceptance is a proper condition for taking judicial notice of scientific facts, but it is not a suitable criterion for the admissibility of scientific evidence. Any relevant conclusions supported by a qualified expert witness should be received unless there are distinct reasons for exclusion. These reasons are the familiar ones of prejudice or misleading the jury or consuming undue amounts of time.
McCormick on Evidence, supra, at 607(-08. Consistent with this approach, Fed. R.Evid. 702 requires only that expert testimony "assist the trier of fact," and does not require general scientific acceptance.
There are, however, significant voices expressing renewed interest in a general ac ceptance test for reliability as a prerequisite for admissibility of expert testimony, and particularly as to novel scientific evidence. See, e.g., Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (5th Cir.1989), 884 F.2d 166, 169 (Higginbotham, J., concurring in dissent); R. Cohen, Unreliable Expert Witness Testimony, For The Defense, Apr. 1990, at 8; B. Epstein & M. Klein, The Use and Abuse of Expert Testimony in Product Liability Actions, 17 Seton Hall L.Rev. 656 (1987); J. Myers, Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Litigation, 68 Neb.L.Rev. 1, 19 (1989).
As to whether a Frye reliability test is a necessary ingredient for the admission of expert testimony, the majority opinion itself is equivocal. It accepts for purposes of discussion the appellant's claim that the State failed to lay a proper Frye foundation showing general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. However, the majority opinion also appears to require only that the trial court determine whether the expert is qualified as a matter of law to give expert testimony in the subject matter area, without apparent regard for reliability, stating, "any battle of qualified experts, *1307as in the instant case, or other conflict as to the reliability of evidence is to be resolved by the trier of fact." (Maj. opinion at 1803).
Considering the existing disagreement regarding whether the Frye reliability standard should govern admissibility, and the fact that neither of the parties in the present case presents a serious challenge to its acceptance in Indiana, the analysis employed by the majority should not be construed as an endorsement or rejection of the Frye methodology. Resolution of this important question remains for another day.
KRAHULIK, J., concurs.