State v. Adams, 572 P.3d 291

2018 shooting at the Speakeasy Lounge: police recovered multiple .40-caliber cartridge cases at the scene and found bullet holes in nearby cars.
Police obtained and executed a warrant at a residence; officers seized a Taurus handgun.
Oregon State Police examiners Todd and Alessio used the AFTE (Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners) method and reported that the seized Taurus "identified" as the firearm that fired the cartridge cases.
Defendant moved pretrial under OEC 104 to exclude AFTE-based identification evidence (relying on Brown and O’Key); the trial court denied exclusion and also denied defendant’s motion to controvert warrants.
At trial the jury convicted defendant of unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm and second-degree criminal mischief (acquitted on attempted murder and assault).
On appeal the court held the state failed to prove AFTE is scientifically valid and reversed and remanded on that ground; it affirmed the denial of the motion to controvert the warrants.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AFTE-based firearm/toolmark identification is admissible as scientific evidence under O’Key/Brown (Daubert framework)	AFTE is a validated, widely used method; studies (including Ames I/II) and low average error rates support admissibility; examiners follow established procedures and verification	AFTE lacks objective, articulable standards; ultimate determinations rest on examiner-specific, subjective "personal identification criteria," so the method is not testable, reproducible, or reliably replicable	Reversed: state failed its OEC 104 burden; AFTE method not shown to be scientifically valid because conclusions depend on subjective, unarticulated standards and are not reliably replicable; admission was erroneous and not harmless
Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to controvert the warrant affidavits and suppress evidence	Omitted eyewitness description of shooter’s clothing was not materially inconsistent with surveillance video; even if material, magistrate still had probable cause	Omitted eyewitness description was material and would have defeated probable cause if included	Affirmed: omission did not undermine probable cause—the eyewitness clothing description was not sufficiently inconsistent with the video to vitiate the warrant showing

State v. O'Key, 321 Or. 285 (Oregon Supreme Court) (adopted Daubert-style gatekeeping; proponent must prove scientific validity by preponderance at OEC 104)
State v. Brown, 297 Or. 404 (Oregon Supreme Court) (factors for evaluating admissibility of scientific/expert evidence)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. Supreme Court) (framework for admissibility of expert scientific evidence)
United States v. Adams, 444 F. Supp. 3d 1248 (D. Or. 2020) (district court excluded AFTE identification testimony as quasi‑scientific and too subjective)