State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880

Background

Defendant Charles McGrady admitted shooting and killing his cousin James Shore; he claimed self-defense of himself and his adult son during a confrontation.
At trial McGrady sought to admit expert testimony from Dave Cloutier on use-of-force "pre-attack cues," sympathetic nervous system (fight-or-flight) effects, and human reaction times to explain why some shots struck Shore in the back.
The trial court held a voir dire and excluded Cloutier’s testimony under amended N.C. R. Evid. 702(a); the jury convicted McGrady of first-degree murder and he received life without parole.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the 2011 amendment to Rule 702(a) adopted the Daubert standard and that exclusion was not an abuse of discretion.
The North Carolina Supreme Court granted discretionary review to decide whether the amended Rule 702(a) incorporates Daubert and whether exclusion of Cloutier’s testimony was an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	McGrady's Argument	Held
Whether the 2011 amendment to N.C. R. Evid. 702(a) incorporated the Daubert/Joiner/Kumho standards for admissibility of expert testimony	The amendment mirrors the federal 2000 amendment and thus codifies the Daubert line (Daubert/Joiner/Kumho) gatekeeping standard	Rule 702 remains a liberal North Carolina standard per Howerton; amendment should not convert NC into a Daubert jurisdiction	Held: The 2011 amendment adopts the Daubert/Joiner/Kumho standard; North Carolina is now a Daubert state.
Whether Cloutier’s testimony on "pre-attack cues" and use-of-force variables was admissible under Rule 702(a) (relevance/assist the trier of fact)	Testimony would assist the jury by explaining threat indicators and contextual variables	The expert was qualified and testimony would explain defendant’s perception and decision-making under threat	Held: Exclusion proper — the court found those topics were within jurors’ common knowledge and would not assist the trier of fact.
Whether Cloutier was qualified to testify about sympathetic nervous system / stress responses (qualifications)	Practical law-enforcement training and experience qualify Cloutier to testify on stress responses and memory/perception effects	Cloutier lacked medical/physiological training and thus was not qualified to opine on nervous-system effects	Held: Exclusion proper — court reasonably required formal medical/scientific qualifications for testimony about physiological processes.
Whether Cloutier’s reaction-time opinion was reliable under Rule 702(a)(1)-(3) (reliability)	Reaction-time statistics and academy testing support his methodology and application to this case	The cited studies and Cloutier’s experiments reliably show how shots could strike a person turned away	Held: Exclusion proper — court reasonably found Cloutier failed to account for known variables (e.g., disabilities), unknown error rates in cited studies, and thus his application was unreliable.

Key Cases Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (expert-admissibility gatekeeping; relevance and reliability inquiry)
General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (trial court discretion in excluding expert testimony; analytical gap standard)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert principles apply to non-scientific expert testimony; procedural latitude for trial courts)
Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (describing Daubert/Joiner/Kumho as imposing exacting reliability standards)
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440 (North Carolina’s pre-amendment liberal three-step expert admissibility framework)
State v. Scoggin, 236 N.C. 19 (legislative authority to create/modify rules of evidence)