Defendant’s CSLI was searched pursuant to a court order, instead of a warrant. However, the court held that the order met the warrant requirements. Thus, there was no error and the defendant was not entitled to suppression of CSLI on Fourth Amendment grounds.
Cases
State v. Cobb, 845 S.E.2d 870 (2020)
The court held that it was error to admit results of field tests, for the drugs only; but it was not prejudicial.
State v. Sasek
On May 19th, 2020 the North Carolina Court of Appeals released its opinion in the case of State v. Sasek. Mr. Sasek was convicted in March of 2019 of possession with intent to sell or deliver a schedule II controlled substance and sale of methamphetamine, which led to the revocation of his probation. Defense counsel …
State v. Sasek, 844 S.E.2d 328 (2020)
The court held that it was not plain error for the analyst to testify that GCMS testing is used to confirm results of presumptive testing but not to testify that GCMS was performed in the case at hand.
People v. Bailey (2014)
In this County Court (Monroe County, New York) case, Judge James J. Piampiano ordered a new trial for the defendant, who was previously convicted of Murder in the Second Degree, holding that newly discovered evidence regarding Shaken Baby Syndrome warranted vacatur. The court concluded that expert witness testimony based on a shift in medical consensus …
Commonwealth v. Millien (2016)
In this Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case, Justice C.J. Gants held that the defendant was denied her right to effective assistance of counsel when her attorney failed to seek public funds in order to retain an expert witness to offer an opinion as to the cause of head injuries sustained by defendant’s infant child. The …
State of NY v. Mansell and Ross (2020)
Decision on Frye Motion making a finding that the relevant scientific community consists of the fields of forensic science, scientific methodology in studies and statistics, and psychology. The court ruled that the examiner may testify about class characteristics, but may not offer qualitative opinions on matters not adequately supported by the relevant scientific community, including …
U.S. v. Nolan (2020)
In this Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals case, Judge Jed Rakoff finds ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to challenge the unreliable eyewitness identification evidence in the case. Counsel failed to consult with an expert, abandoned a pre-trial motion to preclude the eyewitness identification evidence, and failed to move to exclude a prejudicial photo …
State of Georgia v. Sheila Denton – Order for New Trial
2020 Order granting a motion for a new trial based upon advancements in scientific understanding and American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) guidelines that would compel a different expert opinion if the case were tried today. In 2016, the ABFO Standards and Guidelines were changed significantly to no longer allow a conclusion of “exact match” …
State of Georgia v. Sheila Denton – Order for New TrialRead More
State v. Koiyan, 841 S.E.2d 351 (2020)
The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the state’s fingerprint examiner where the expert failed to show he applied reliably applied the relevant methods and principles to the case, in violation of N.C. Evid. Rule 702(a)(3). Because the defendant failed to object at trial, the issue was reviewed …
State v. Newsuan, 837 S.E.2d 728 (2020)(unpub)
The court held that it was not plain error for a detective to testify as a lay witness that the defendant was displaying gang signs with his hands.
State v. Mitchell, 840 S.E.2d 276 (2020)
Rule 701 allows a non-expert to testify in the form of opinion or inference where it is rationally based on a perception of the witness and helpful to the determination of a fact in issue. Testimony from a lay witness and an officer about their suspicion that the defendant used an app to conceal text …
State v. Corbett & Martens, 839 S.E.2d 361 (2019)
Expert Stuart James’s treatise on blood spatter said that suspected bloodstains should be subject to presumptive, confirmatory, and DNA testing before analysis of the spatter is conducted. The court held that blood spatter expert’s conclusions regarding untested stains on clothing did not result from reliable application of scientific methods and evidentiary errors were prejudicial.
State v. Hewitt, 836 S.E.2d 786 (2019)(unpub)
The court held that it was not plain error for the analyst to testify to the identity of a controlled substance without explaining what type of chemical analysis she performed. She testified she performed a color test and an instrumental analysis.
State v. Phillips, 268 N.C. App. 623 (2019)
New trial ordered where State Crime Lab forensic scientist was required to testify about DNA sample despite her insistence that the testimony was not scientifically valid. Court of Appeals found that the testimony was expert opinion testimony and did not satisfy prongs 1 or 2 of Rule 702 where the expert was asked to testify …