explaining the standard to reviewing a trial court's ruling admitting or excluding evidence is abuse of discretion, and the test is whether the trial judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles
How later courts described this case
- explaining the standard to reviewing a trial court's ruling admitting or excluding evidence is abuse of discretion, and the test is whether the trial judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles
- holding that a trial court may use a Daubert analysis to evaluate the reliability of any type of expert testimony, when doing so would be helpful to such a determination
- noting that abuse of discretion is the standard of review for a trial court’s evidentiary rulings and that the same standard applies to KRE 702
- “KRE gives the trial court the discretionary authority, reviewable for its abuse, to determine the admissibility of expert testimony in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the particular case. The discretion given to a trial court in determining the admissibility of expert testimony is ‘discretion to choose among reasonable means of excluding expertise that is fausse and junky.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STUMBO, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with that part of the majority opinion which adopts the Kumho Tire decision and thereby applies the Daubert analysis to the testimony of engineers and other “non-scientific” expert witnesses. However, I believe that Hahn’s proposed testimony satisfied Daubert’s requirements of reliability and relevance and that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding his testimony. I therefore join the dissent to the extent that it objects to the exclusion of Hahn’s testimony.