CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Opinion & Scientific Evidence
......Kelly Test (Kelly-Frye)
.........What is Not Subject to Test
............Procedure Not New
10 Cards On This Topic:

Kelly hearing not necessary as to dog trailing evidence, which is grounded in the ability of particular dogs to perform scent trailing on command and admissible in CA since 1978.

Trial court did not err in admitting pubic hair comparison evidence where it had logical bearing on D’s commission of crimes and criminalist acknowledged hair comparison evidence of limited significance.

Ballistics comparison using method previously reserved to record tool marks was not a new scientific technique subject to Kelly test.

No Kelly/Frye showing necessary when pubic hair comparison test and semen testing for genetic markers not new scientific techniques.

Trial ct. did not err in not holding a Kelly hearing before admitting evidence of partial DNA profiles from material found on V's fingernails developed through use of a "MiniFiler" DNA test kit.

Kelly/Frye test does not bar admission into evidence of ADX Abbott urinalysis test in probation revocation hearing.

Profiler Plus DNA test kit does not embrace any new scientific technique requiring a first prong Kelly hearing.

Assessor's appraisals complied with legal standards; Kelly Frye only applies to new scientific tests and not expert's personal opinion.

Preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) device is simply form of breath testing device and thus not required to satisfy Kelly/Frye.

Error to exclude expert testimony re sleep disorders under Kelly-Frye; was ordinary expert psycho-physiological testimony, not new procedure or profile.