|
The Supreme Court of South Carolina Clarifies the Analytical Framework for the Admissibility of Nonscientific Expert Testimony under Rule 702 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure
The South Carolina Supreme Court recently held that nonscientific expert testimony was subject to the same “gatekeeping” analysis for the witness’ qualifications and for the reliability of the testimony as required for scientific experts. The Supreme Court had the chance to review a decision by the Court of Appeals that suggested that the initial determination of reliability with respect to nonscientific expert testimony was not part of the trial court’s gatekeeping role. The Supreme Court first noted that Rule 702 of the SCRCP imposed an affirmative and meaningful gatekeeping duty on trial courts with respect to both nonscientific (or experienced based) expert testimony as well as scientific expert testimony. The Court then held that “[n]onscientific expert testimony must satisfy Rule 702, both in terms of expert qualifications and reliability of the subject matter,” overruling State v. Morgan, 326 S.C. 503, 485 S.E.2d 112 (Ct. App. 1997) to the extent “it suggests that only scientific expert testimony must pass a threshold reliability determination by the trial court prior to its admission in evidence.”
The Court noted that the standard reliability factors for scientific evidence provided in State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 515 S.E.2d 508 (1999) served no purpose when evaluating nonscientific evidence and stated there was no “formulaic approach that would apply in the generality of cases.” The Court stated: “trial courts of this state have a gatekeeping role with respect to all evidence sought to be admitted under Rule 702, whether the evidence is scientific or nonscientific. In the discharge of its gatekeeping role, a trial court must assess the threshold foundational requirements of qualifications and reliability and further find that the proposed evidence will assist the trier of fact. The familiar evidentiary mantra that a challenge to evidence goes to ‘weight, not admissibility’ may be invoked only after the trial court has vetted the matters of qualification and reliability and admitted the evidence.”
This is an important decision because it requires a more rigorous standard for the introduction of evidence from nonscientific experts. It does not allow trial courts to accept such evidence without finding such experts qualified and their testimony reliable.
State v. White, 2009 WL 1108881 (S.C. April 27, 2009).
|
