Court Opinion

ID: 9511704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:07:14.986364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:08.124684
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE NELSON
concurs.
¶74 I concur in the Court’s Opinion. With respect to our discussion at Issue Two, and Bieber’s argument that a Daubert hearing is required when the evidence offered involves “novel” scientific evidence, I note only that I continue to disagree with our jurisprudence that limits the application of Daubert to that type of evidence. See State v. Clifford, 2005 MT 219, ¶¶ 60-91, 328 Mont. 300, ¶¶ 60-91, 121 P.3d 489, ¶¶ 60-91 (Nelson, J., concurring). On the facts here, however, and even if our Daubert jurisprudence were not so constrained, I conclude that the result would not have been any different.
¶75 I concur.