murder of her twin four year-old sons. She argues that the trial court erred by (1) limiting the scope of her expert testimony regarding her insanity defense; (2) denying her motion to exclude a State expert who had surreptitiously assisted the State during a deposition of one of her experts; and (3) denying her proposed jury instructions on involuntary intoxication and excusable homicide. We affirm. On the first issue, Demeniuk’s contention that her experts’ testimony was not subject to Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), is barred by the law of the case doctrine because in State v. Demeniuk, 888 So.2d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), we held that a Frye hearing was necessary and ordered the lower court to conduct one. See, e.g., State v. Budina, 879 So.2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the trial court correctly
holding that an unappealed ruling is the law of the case holding that claim preclusion did not apply even though the legal theory at issue in that case was addressed in a previous case because the case at issue was based on a different set of operative facts recognizing that a previous panels review of the same habeas petition is the law of the case holding in a similar case that certiorari was the proper vehicle for review holding that previous legal ruling granting certiorari was law of the case in subsequent proceedings