• About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
    • Foundations of Forensics
    • Arson
    • Bite Mark
    • Blood & Bodily Fluids
    • Child Abuse Allegations
    • Crime Scene Investigation
    • Death Investigation
    • Detection Dogs
    • Digital Evidence
    • DNA
    • Drug Analysis
    • Drug Recognition Experts
    • Eyewitness ID
    • Fingerprints
    • Firearms
    • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
    • Measurement Uncertainty
    • Mental Health
    • Toxicology
    • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
    • Forensic Consultations
    • Books
    • Cases
    • Featured Articles
    • Legislation
    • Motions and Briefs
      • Discovery Motions
      • Funding for Experts
      • Motions for Appropriate Relief
      • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
      • Motions for Independent Testing
      • Motions to Preserve Evidence
      • Motions to Suppress
      • Analyst Certification Motions
    • Reports & Publications
    • Trainings
    • Websites
    • Forensic Terminology
    • Online Research Tools
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Expert Services Project
    • Add or Update Expert Records
  • Subscribe
  • Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Forensic Resources

North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services

Header Right

MENUMENU
  • About
  • Blog
  • Forensic Disciplines
        • Foundations of Forensics
        • Arson
        • Bite Mark
        • Blood & Bodily Fluids
        • Child Abuse Allegations
        • Crime Scene Investigation
        • Death Investigation
        • Detection Dogs
        • Digital Evidence
        • DNA
        • Drug Analysis
        • Drug Recognition Experts
        • Eyewitness ID
        • Fingerprints
        • Firearms
        • Forensic/Sexual Assault Exams
        • Measurement Uncertainty
        • Mental Health
        • Toxicology
        • Trace Evidence
  • Resources
        • Forensic Consultations
        • Books
        • Cases
        • Featured Articles
        • Legislation
        • Reports & Publications
        • Trainings
        • Websites
        • Forensic Terminology
        • Online Research Tools
        • Motions and Briefs
          • Discovery Motions
          • Funding for Experts
          • Motions for Appropriate Relief
          • Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony
          • Motions for Independent Testing
          • Motions to Preserve Evidence
          • Motions to Suppress
          • Analyst Certification Motions
  • Crime Labs
    • General Information
    • NC State Crime Lab Procedures
    • Charlotte Mecklenburg Crime Lab
    • CCBI Lab Procedures
    • NC OCME Toxicology Lab
    • Pitt Co. Sheriff’s Forensic Services
    • Sec. of State Digital Forensic Lab
    • Wilmington Police Dept Crime Lab
    • Private and Out-of-State Labs
  • News Articles
  • Experts
    • Browse All Experts
    • Working with Experts
    • Expert Services Project
    • Add or Update Expert Records
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Announcements / Unpublished COA Opinion highlights the importance of preserving objections to expert testimony

Unpublished COA Opinion highlights the importance of preserving objections to expert testimony

August 11, 2021 //  by Kate Shurtleff//  Leave a Comment

In State v. Martin, an Aug. 3, 2021 unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals found that it was error to admit the expert’s testimony, but that it was not plain error. At trial, a NC State Crime Lab drug chemistry expert testified to GCMS results without explaining methodology, the reliability of methodology, or the application of method to facts of the case as required by Rule of Evidence 702. While it was error to admit her testimony, the Court of Appeals found the testimony “does not amount to ‘baseless speculation,’ and therefore her testimony was not so prejudicial that justice could not have been done,” citing State v. Sasek, 271 N.C. App. 568, 574 (2020).

This outcome is an important reminder to preserve the issue of a violation of Rule of Evidence 702 by objecting at trial and stating the basis for the objection under Rule 702. In Martin, when asked if he wanted to voir dire the witness, stated that he objected but did not wish to be heard. When expert testimony is correctly challenged under Rule 702 at trial the standard of review on appeal is abuse of discretion. If the issue is not preserved at trial, as in Martin, the standard of review is plain error. The Court of Appeals in Martin found that the expert’s testimony did not meet the standard of plain error even though the testimony violated Rule 702. Therefore, the defendant had no opportunity for relief regarding that issue. To preserve the ability to appeal a violation of Rule 702 in a way that offers relief to your client, attorneys should object to the testimony at trial and stating the basis of the objection under Rule 702.

See the full opinion here.

Category: Announcements

Previous Post: « Webinar: Cannabis and NC Law Update
Next Post: DNA-only evidence not sufficient in CT case »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Site Footer

The Forensic Resource Counsel provides assistance to North Carolina attorneys litigating scientific evidence issues.
Information provided on this website is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Copyright © 2023 · Office of Indigent Defense Services · All Rights Reserved · Website by Tomatillo Design

Copyright © 2023 Forensic Resources · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Mai Theme