Legal Opinion

Ballard v. State

Court of Appeals of Alaska

Decided April 3, 1998No. A-5679PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MANNHEIMER, Judge.

This appeal requires us to decide whether the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, or “HGN” test, satisfies the standard for admissibility of scientific evidence established in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and reaffirmed as the governing standard in Alaska in Contreras v. State, 718 P.2d 129, 134-36 (Alaska 1986).

In the HGN test, the subject is asked to cover one eye and then use the remaining eye to track the lateral progress of an object (usually a pen) as the officer moves the object at eye-level across the subject’s field of vision. As the moving object…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. Emerson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1994
  3. State v. O'KeyOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1986
  5. People v. LeahyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. State v. ShaddenSupreme Court of Kansas · 2010
  2. John's Heating Service v. LambAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
  3. People v. McKownIllinois Supreme Court · 2010
  4. State v. BaueNebraska Supreme Court · 2000
  5. People v. McKownIllinois Supreme Court · 2007

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API