ARMANDE SHELTEN ALFORD v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, J Eyler, March 2, 2018,
Expert Witness – Frye-Reed – A trial judge may decide on her own to exclude expert testimony on the basis of Frye-Reed without a challenge by the opposing party

This opinion is a bit of a mess with regard to expert witnesses. Doubtful precedential value outside of the above holding

Facts:
Alford was charged in Somerset County with sexual abuse of his niece, “D.H.”
D.H. was born in 2005 and lived on and off with her mother’s family in Virginia and her father’s family in Crisfield, MD.
D.H. lived in Crisfield with her grandmother from June 1, 2010 to July 26, 2010. Additionally, D.H. frequently spent the summers in Crisfield.
In 2015, D.H. told her mother that she didn’t want to go to Crisfield. She explained that when she was four or five years old and living in Crisfield, Alford had her put his penis in her mouth.
D.H.’s mother brought her to Crisfield to speak to police about what had occurred.
An MSP investigator spoke with Alford, who initially denied ever having been alone with D.H. He then admitted that one time they were alone, but insisted that nothing happened. However, towards the end of the interview, when the MSP investigator suggested that D.H. may have touched his penis, Alford stated, “[m]aybe she did touch me or something” and “[m]aybe she touched me and I pushed her away[.]” He admitted that on one occasion, D.H. “walked up to me, something like that, touched me or something, and I said, get away from me, or something like that.”
Based on D.H.’s statement that the events occurred when she was 4 or 5 and living in Crisfield, Alford was charged with having committed the sex offense between June 1, 2010 and July 26, 2010.
At trial, Alford tried to present an expert witness to testify about childhood memory formation to suggest that D.H. might have been wrong both with regard to the time frame as well as what actually occurred.
The trial judge excluded Alford’s witness without a hearing, finding that the defense witness was “not qualified as an expert” and that the defense should have requested a Frye-Reed hearing prior to trial if they wanted her to be qualified.
Alford moved for the judge to find him not guilty on the basis that he was charged as an adult but the evidence did not clearly show that he was an adult when he committed the crime. The trial judge denied this request.
Alford was subsequently convicted.
Alford appealed, arguing that his expert witness was improperly excluded without any consideration of her expertise. Alford also argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish jurisdiction (that the event occurred while Alford was an adult and that it occurred in Somerset County).

Held: The Court of Special Appeals found that the trial judge failed to consider the witness issue properly and sent the case back for a new trial. The COSA also found that there was enough evidence to find that Alford was an adult when he committed the crime.

Expert Testimony – Expert testimony may be admitted if the testimony will assist the judge or jury understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue

Expert Testimony – Frye-Reed – Not all expert opinions are allowed into evidence in Maryland. In order for an expert to testify on the basis of a technique or method, it must be shown that:
– The scientific technique is not “novel” to the courts (it has already been accepted by the courts)
– or, if the technique is novel to the courts, it has been generally accepted by the scientific community as reliable (accurate, reproducible, standardized, etc.)

Expert Testimony – Scientific evidence can be admitted if it has previously been accepted by the courts, if there is a statute that allows it (for example: breath tests) or where the evidence is “generally accepted” in the relevant scientific community.

Expert Testimony – “General acceptance” in the relevant scientific community can be determined by expert testimony explaining the acceptance, judicial notice, or some combination of the two.

Expert Testimony- The burden of requesting a Frye-Reed hearing and then proving its merit is on the party intending to introduce the expert testimony

From the Case: There was not enough evidence presented at trial for the Court of Special Appeals to know whether the scientific technique would have been allowed or not

Expert Witness – Frye-Reed – A trial judge may exclude expert testimony on the basis of Frye-Reed without a challenge by the opposing party

Note: Federal courts use a different standard that looks at whether the witness is qualified and if the technique is reliable. The federal test if more flexible and relies less on “general acceptance” within the scientific community.

Expert Testimony – To decide whether expert testimony will be admitted, the court must consider:
(1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,
(2) the appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject, and
(3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony.

Expert Testimony – It is the burden of the party trying to introduce the expert to show that her expert testimony is appropriate

Jurisdiction – A Maryland Circuit Court is a court of general jurisdiction, meaning that it is presumed to have jurisdiction over any case in front of it

Jurisdiction – The burden is on the person challenging a circuit court’s jurisdiction to show that it doesn’t exist

Jurisdiction – The “mere possibility” that the court does not have jurisdiction is not enough

From the Case: The only evidence Alford presented related to child support documents concerning when D.H.’s father’s child support obligations were suspended. The evidence had no bearing on whether Alford was 18 years old when he committed the crime. Therefore, Alford failed to rebut the presumption that the circuit court had jurisdiction.