Kelly v. State

Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 5, 1992 · No. No. 969-90

Summary

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the Frye general-acceptance test no longer governs the admissibility of novel scientific evidence in Texas criminal trials. Applying Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 702, the court held that the proponent must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the underlying scientific theory is valid, the technique is valid, and the technique was properly applied. The court affirmed the admission of DNA RFLP evidence and the judgment of the court of appeals.

Holdings

  1. The Frye general-acceptance test is not part of Texas law because Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 702 provides no textual basis for a special admissibility standard for novel scientific evidence, and scientific evidence may be reliable even if it has not yet achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.
  2. Before novel scientific evidence may be admitted, the proponent must prove to the trial court, outside the presence of the jury, by clear and convincing evidence that the underlying scientific theory is valid, the technique applying the theory is valid, and the technique was properly applied in the particular case.
  3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the DNA evidence because clear and convincing evidence established the validity of the underlying scientific principle, the validity of the RFLP technique, the proper application of the technique, and the reliability of the related population-frequency studies, with no showing that Rule 403 concerns outweighed the evidence's probative value.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Frye general-acceptance test governed the admissibility of novel scientific evidence in Texas criminal trials after promulgation of the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence.
  2. What reliability showing and burden of persuasion Rule 702 requires before novel scientific evidence may be admitted.
  3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the DNA identification evidence in this case.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (19)

  • Kelly v. State, 792 S.W.2d 579 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1990)(followed)
  • Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)(rejected)
  • Zani v. State, 758 S.W.2d 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)(followed in part)
  • Reed v. State, 644 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)(considered)
  • Cain v. State, 549 S.W.2d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)(considered)
  • Romero v. State, 493 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)(considered)
  • Duckett v. State, 797 S.W.2d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)(followed)
  • Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)(followed)
  • United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786 (2d Cir. 1992)(considered)
  • State v. Brown, 470 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 1991)(considered)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…