Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1995, page 28
Cotton v. Virginia, 451 S.E.2d 673, 675 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). The Virginia Supreme Court
rejected Frye in Spencer v. Virginia, 393 S.E.2d 609 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 908
(1990). Spencer test emphasizes reliability.
West Virginia
Wilt v. Buracker, 443 S.E.2d 196, 203 (1993).
Wisconsin
Wisconsin v. Peters, 534 N.W.2d 867, 872 (Wis. App. 1995). Wisconsin rejected the Frye
standard before Daubert. See Watson v. Wisconsin 219 N.W.2d 398, 403 (1974).
Wyoming
Springfield v. Wyoming, 860 P.2d 435, 442, 443 (1993).
Frye States
Alaska
Mattox v. Alaska Revenue Dept, 875 P.2d 763, 764 (1994). General scientific acceptance is
a statutory requirement for admissibility of technical tests in paternity cases. The court uses
Alaska Statute and a common law requirement for scientific evidence where no statute
governs. Cited Pulakios v. Alaska 476 P.2d 474 (1970) (adopting Frye).
California
California v. Leahy, 882 P.2d 321, 331 (1994). The Kelly/Frye standard survives Daubert.
District of Columbia
Taylor v. United States, 661 A.2d 636, 651, 652 (1995).
Florida
Flanagan v. Florida, 625 So. 2d 827, 829 (1993).
Kansas
Kansas v. Warden, 891 P.2d 1074, 1085 (1995). “This court has adopted the Frye test
concerning the admissibility of scientific evidence.” See Kansas v. Witte, 836 P.2d 1110
(1992).
Maryland
Hutton v. Maryland, 663 A.2d 1289, 1296 (1995). Uses Frye/Reed standard. See Reed v.
Maryland, 391 A.2d 364 (1978).
Nebraska
Nebraska v. Dean, 523 N.W.2d 681, 692 (1994).
New York
New York v. Wesley, 633 N.E.2d 451 (1994). Concurring opinion states that all judges
agreed to follow Frye.
Washington
Washington v. Gentry, 888 P.2d 1105, 1117 (1995).
No Decision by a State Supreme Court
Arizona
Arizona v. Bible, 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993). We leave Daubert for another day and apply
Frye.
Colorado
Lindsey v. Colorado, 892 P.2d 281, 288 (1995). Uses Frye standard. The court did not
consider Daubert because the issue was not raised.
Connecticut
Connecticut v. Sivri, 646 A.2d 169, 189 (1994). Uses Frye because neither party asked the
court to change.
Georgia
Orkin Exterminating Co. v. McIntosh, 452 S.E.2d 159, 165 (Ga. App. 1994). “Daubert
involves the application of FRE 702, which has not been adopted in Georgia. The applicable
law in Georgia is OCGA §24-9-67, which provides: „[t]he opinions of experts on any
question of science, skill, trade or like questions shall always be admissible.‟”
Cotton v. Virginia, 451 S.E.2d 673, 675 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). The Virginia Supreme Court
rejected Frye in Spencer v. Virginia, 393 S.E.2d 609 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 908
(1990). Spencer test emphasizes reliability.
West Virginia
Wilt v. Buracker, 443 S.E.2d 196, 203 (1993).
Wisconsin
Wisconsin v. Peters, 534 N.W.2d 867, 872 (Wis. App. 1995). Wisconsin rejected the Frye
standard before Daubert. See Watson v. Wisconsin 219 N.W.2d 398, 403 (1974).
Wyoming
Springfield v. Wyoming, 860 P.2d 435, 442, 443 (1993).
Frye States
Alaska
Mattox v. Alaska Revenue Dept, 875 P.2d 763, 764 (1994). General scientific acceptance is
a statutory requirement for admissibility of technical tests in paternity cases. The court uses
Alaska Statute and a common law requirement for scientific evidence where no statute
governs. Cited Pulakios v. Alaska 476 P.2d 474 (1970) (adopting Frye).
California
California v. Leahy, 882 P.2d 321, 331 (1994). The Kelly/Frye standard survives Daubert.
District of Columbia
Taylor v. United States, 661 A.2d 636, 651, 652 (1995).
Florida
Flanagan v. Florida, 625 So. 2d 827, 829 (1993).
Kansas
Kansas v. Warden, 891 P.2d 1074, 1085 (1995). “This court has adopted the Frye test
concerning the admissibility of scientific evidence.” See Kansas v. Witte, 836 P.2d 1110
(1992).
Maryland
Hutton v. Maryland, 663 A.2d 1289, 1296 (1995). Uses Frye/Reed standard. See Reed v.
Maryland, 391 A.2d 364 (1978).
Nebraska
Nebraska v. Dean, 523 N.W.2d 681, 692 (1994).
New York
New York v. Wesley, 633 N.E.2d 451 (1994). Concurring opinion states that all judges
agreed to follow Frye.
Washington
Washington v. Gentry, 888 P.2d 1105, 1117 (1995).
No Decision by a State Supreme Court
Arizona
Arizona v. Bible, 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993). We leave Daubert for another day and apply
Frye.
Colorado
Lindsey v. Colorado, 892 P.2d 281, 288 (1995). Uses Frye standard. The court did not
consider Daubert because the issue was not raised.
Connecticut
Connecticut v. Sivri, 646 A.2d 169, 189 (1994). Uses Frye because neither party asked the
court to change.
Georgia
Orkin Exterminating Co. v. McIntosh, 452 S.E.2d 159, 165 (Ga. App. 1994). “Daubert
involves the application of FRE 702, which has not been adopted in Georgia. The applicable
law in Georgia is OCGA §24-9-67, which provides: „[t]he opinions of experts on any
question of science, skill, trade or like questions shall always be admissible.‟”
