APPENDIX E
STATE STANDARDS
FOR ADMITTING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
The following chart indicates the standard by which each state admits scientific testimony into evidence, either Frye, the FRE or some other standard. The first column of the chart lists the states and the District of Columbia. The next two columns separate those states into two categories: those that have adopted the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert and those states that follow the Frye standard (in some instances the decision preceded Daubert and its continued validity may be open to question).
Each of those columns are separated further into two more columns. Under the "Follow FRE" column, an "X" under "Adopted FRE" means that the state has adopted an evidence code exactly like or similar to the Federal Rules of Evidence and follows the rationale of the Daubert Court by abandoning the Frye standard. An "X" under "Did not adopt FRE" means that although the state does not have an FRE-type evidence code, it follows the Daubert rationale anyway, unless otherwise noted.
Under the "Follow Frye" column, an "X" under "Adopted FRE" means that although the state has adopted an FRE-type evidence code, it continues to adhere to the Frye standard despite the Daubert ruling. An "X" under the "Did not adopt FRE" indicates the state has not adopted a FRE-type evidence code and continues to follow Frye.
The last column gives the case name and cite of the seminal case in that state dealing with the admissibility standard for scientific evidence. You will notice that many of the states that have adopted FRE-type evidence codes but continue to follow Frye have cases that may pre-date Daubert. Unless otherwise noted, the case cited is the last case in the jurisdiction to address the admissibility of scientific evidence. Until a state court renders a decision either expressly rejection or adopting the Daubert rationale, it is assumed that the Frye standard remains the scientific standard in that jurisdiction.
For future updates, please contact the National Traffic Law Center, 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510,
Alexandria, Virginia, 22314, Phone:(703) 549-4253, Fax: 703-836-3195.
Last update: 3/17/99
STATE |
FOLLOW FRE or Daubert rationale |
FOLLOW FRYE |
CASE |
||
Adopted FRE |
Did not adopt FRE |
Adopted FRE |
Did not adopt FRE |
||
ALABAMA |
X |
Ex Parte Perry, 586 So.2d 242 (Ala. 1991) |
|||
ALASKA |
X |
State v. Coon, 1999 Alas. Lexis 28 (March 5, 1999). |
|||
ARIZONA |
X |
State v. Bible, 858 P.2d 1152 (Ariz. 1993); and see State v. Johnson, 922 P.2d 294 (Ariz. 1996) (expressly rejecting Daubert) |
|||
ARKANSAS |
X |
State v. Prater, 820 S.W.2d 429 (Ark. 1991) |
|||
CALIFORNIA |
X |
People v. Kelly, 549 P.2d 1240 (Cal. 1976); and see People v. Leahy, 882 P.2d 321 (Cal. 1994) (expressly rejecting Daubert) |
|||
COLORADO |
X |
Fishback v. People, 851 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1993); and see Lindsey v. People, 892 P.2d 281 (Colo. 1995) (expressly rejecting Daubert) |
|||
CONNECTICUT |
X |
State v. Porter, 698 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1997) |
|||
DELAWARE |
X |
State v. Pennell, 584 A.2d 513 (Del. Super. Ct. 1989) |
|||
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |
X |
Jones v. United States, 548 A.2d 35 (D.C. App. 1988) |
|||
FLORIDA |
X |
Flanagan v. State, 625 So.2d 827 (Fla. 1993); See Hadden v. State, 690 So. 2d 573 (1997) (expressly rejecting Daubert) |
|||
GEORGIA |
X |
Harper v. State, 292 S.E.2d 389 (Ga. 1982) |
|||
HAWAII |
X |
State v. Montalbo, 828 P.2d 1274 (Hawaii 1992) |
|||
IDAHO |
X |
State v. Crea, 806 P.2d 445 (Idaho 1991) |
|||
ILLINOIS |
X |
People v. Baynes, 430 N.E.2d 1070 (Ill. 1981) |
|||
INDIANA |
X |
Steward v. State, 652 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. 1995) |
|||
IOWA |
X |
State v. Hall, 297 N.W.2d 80 (Iowa 1980) |
|||
KANSAS |
X |
Smith v. Deppish, 807 P.2d 144 (Kan. 1991) |
|||
KENTUCKY |
X |
Cecil v. Commonwealth, 888 S.W.2d 669 (Ky. 1994) |
|||
LOUISIANA |
X |
State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La. 1993) |
|||
MAINE |
X |
State v. Williams, 388 A.2d 500 (Me. 1978) |
|||
MARYLAND |
X |
Reed v. State, 391 A.2d 364 (Md. 1978); and see Hutton v. State, 663 A.2d 1289 (Md. 1995) (expressly keeping Frye) |
|||
MASSACHUSETTS |
X |
Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 641 N.E.2d 1342 (Mass. 1994) |
|||
MICHIGAN |
X |
People v. Young, 340 N.W.2d 805 (Mich. 1983) |
|||
MINNESOTA |
X |
State v. Jobe, 486 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. 1992) |
|||
MISSISSIPPI |
X |
Polk v. State, 612 So.2d 381 (Miss. 1991) |
|||
MISSOURI |
X |
State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593 (Mo. banc. 1991) |
|||
MONTANA |
X |
State v. Clark, 762 P.2d 853 (Mont. 1988) |
|||
NEBRASKA |
X |
State v. Reynolds, 457 N.W.2d 405 (Neb. 1990); and see State v. Carter, 524 N.W.2d 763 (Neb. 1994) (expressly keeping Frye) |
|||
NEVADA |
X |
Santillanes v. State, 765 P.2d 1147 (Nev. 1988) |
|||
NEW HAMPSHIRE |
X |
State v. Vandebogart, 616 A.2d 483 (N.H. 1992) |
|||
NEW JERSEY |
X |
State v. Spann, 617 A.2d 247 (N.J. 1993) |
|||
NEW MEXICO |
X |
State v. Alberico, 861 P.2d 192 (N.M. 1993) |
|||
NEW YORK |
X |
People v. Hughes, 453 N.E.2d 484 (N.Y. 1983) |
|||
NORTH CAROLINA |
X |
State v. Pennington, 393 S.E.2d 847 (N.C. 1990) |
|||
NORTH DAKOTA |
X |
State v. Brown, 337 N.W.2d 138 (N.D. 1983) |
|||
OHIO |
X |
State v. Williams, 446 N.E.2d 444 (Ohio 1983) |
|||
OKLAHOMA |
X |
Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) |
|||
OREGON |
X |
State v. Brown, 687 P.2d 751 (Or. 1984) |
|||
PENNSYLVANIA |
X |
Commonwealth v. Zook, 615 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1992) |
|||
RHODE ISLAND |
X |
State v. Wheeler, 496 A.2d 1382 (R.I. 1985) |
|||
SOUTH CAROLINA |
X |
State v. Ford, 392 S.E.2d 781 (S.C. 1990) |
|||
SOUTH DAKOTA |
X |
State v. Hofer, 512 N.W.2d 482 (S.D. 1994) |
|||
TENNESSEE |
X |
See Comments to Tenn. Evid. Rule 702 (stating that the Rule is consistent with Frye); State v. Johnson, 717 S.W.2d 298 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989) |
|||
TEXAS |
X |
Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) |
|||
UTAH |
X |
State v. Crosby, 927 P.2d 638 (Utah 1996) |
|||
VERMONT |
X |
State v. Brooks, 643 A.2d 226 (Vt. 1993) |
|||
VIRGINIA |
X |
O’Dell v. Commonwealth, 364 S.E.2d 491 (Va. 1988) |
|||
WASHINGTON |
X |
State v. Martin, 684 P.2d 651 (Wash. 1984); See State v. Copeland, 922 P.2d 1304 (Wash. 1996) (expressly rejecting Daubert) |
|||
WEST VIRGINIA |
X |
State v. Woodall, 385 S.E.2d 253 (W.Va. 1989) |
|||
WISCONSIN |
X |
State v. Walstad, 351 N.W.2d 469 (Wis. 1984) |
|||
WYOMING |
X |
Rivera v. State, 840 P.2d 933 (Wyo. 1992) |
|||
TOTALS |
26 |
3 |
17 |
5 |