116, 126-27, 970 P.2d 215, 222-23 (1998) (murder conviction) (Although earlier case of State v. Hansen, 304 Or. 169, 173-76, 743 P.2d 157, 159-61 (1987) excluded expert testimony on grooming, it did not hold that such testimony is, in all circumstances, inadmissible. Experts can explain seemingly abnormal responses of a certain class of victims but must refrain from providing details of the victimization process.); State v. LaBounty, 168 Vt. 129, 141, 716 A.2d 1, 9 (1998) (saying that "profile” evidence has been overwhelmingly disapproved by appellate courts); In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wash.2d 724, 757, 72 P.3d 708, 726 (2003) (profile evidence inadmissible, citing State v. Braham); Braham, 67 Wash.App. 930, 937-39, 938 n. 5, 939 n. 7, 841 P.2d 785, 789-90, 790 ns. 5, 7 (Div. 1 1992) (<HOLDING>). 72 .See this opinion, ante. 73 . Eeds, 254
holding grooming evidence inadmissible under r 403 under the facts of the case but not foreclosing admissibility in every case and not addressing r 702 holding that laboratory error is a matter of weight and not admissibility under frye v united states 293 f 1013 dccir1923 under rule of evidence 702 if lab error or error rates are so serious that results are not helpful to the jury the trial court may in its discretion rule the evidence inadmissible holding that evidence necessary to the governments rebuttal of a defendants case could not be excluded under rule 403 but could have been if it was introduced only to bolster the prosecutions case holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant holding that rule 702 admissibility determinations are reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard