DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite State v. Vandebogart, 616 A.2d 483.

13 citing documents.

  • State v. Whittey 821 A.2d 1086 N.H. 2003
    To be admissible under Frye, we require: 1) general acceptance in the relevant scientific community of the scientific theory or principle; and 2) general acceptance in the relevant scientific community of the techniques, experiments, or procedures applying that theory or principle.
  • State v. Dahood 814 A.2d 159 N.H. 2002
    Hungerford, 142 N.H. at 117; see also State v. Vandebogart (DNA), 136 N.H. 365, 376 (1992).
  • State v. Marshall 975 P.2d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Walters 698 A.2d 1244 N.H. 1997
    We also review the trial court’s decisions on the reliability of scientific evidence deferentially, “although we review some aspects of scientific evidence independently when their reliability or general acceptance is not likely to vary according to the circumstances of a particular case.” Hungerford, 142 N.H. at 117, 697 A.2d at 920; see State v. Vandebogart (DNA), 136 N.H. 365, 376, 616 A.2d 483, 491 (1992).
  • State v. Hungerford 697 A.2d 916 N.H. 1997
    We review the trial court’s determination of the reliability of novel scientific evidence with similar deference, see Cressey, 137 N.H. at 405, 628 A.2d at 698, although we review the reliability or general acceptance of novel scientific evidence independently when the determination is not likely to vary according to the circumstances of a particular case, see State v. Vandebogart (DNA), 136 N.H. 365, 376, 616 A.2d 483, 491 (1992).
  • State v. Bogan 905 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Johnson 905 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Vandebogart 652 A.2d 671 N.H. 1994
    In State v. Vandebogart (DNA), 136 N.H. 365, 616 A.2d 483 (1992), we bifurcated the defendant’s appeal to expedite our consideration of issues relating solely to the admissibility of forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profiling.
  • State v. Hummert 905 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. 1994
  • In re Gina D. 645 A.2d 61 N.H. 1994
    If Bastille’s evaluation and diagnosis were presented as novel scientific evidence, it would not meet either prong of the test for admissibility articulated in State v. Vandebogart (DNA), 136 N.H. 365, 376, 616 A.2d 483, 490 (1992), as neither the principle nor the techniques of diagnosing sexual abuse used by Bastille have been generally accepted by behavioral scientists.
  • State v. Bible 858 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Alt 504 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Cressey 628 A.2d 696 N.H. 1993
    Cir. 1923), see State v. Vandebogart (DNA), 136 N.H. 365, 373, 616 A.2d 483, 489 (1992).