The admissibility standard governing your expert depends on the jurisdiction — and the landscape keeps shifting. Six states still follow Frye, most follow Daubert, and a meaningful minority apply hybrid or homegrown standards that fit neither label. Click any state for the controlling authority.
As of September 2026. Verified against primary sources; re-verified annually.
September 2026
Tile map — positions are approximate. Tap a category above to isolate it; tap a state for its authority.
| Jurisdiction ▲▼ | Standard ▲▼ | Controlling authority | Practical note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Hybrid / Modified | Ala. R. Evid. 702(b); Ala. Code §12-21-160 (eff. 2012) | Daubert-based test applies to scientific evidence only (Kumho extension rejected); non-scientific expert testimony is governed by Rule 702(a). Exceptions incl. domestic relations and medical liability act. |
| Alaska | Daubert / Daubert-type | State v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386 (Alaska 1999); Thompson v. Cooper (2012) | Daubert governs scientific testimony; experience-based testimony is treated more liberally. |
| Arizona | Daubert / Daubert-type | Ariz. R. Evid. 702 (2012); State v. Salazar-Mercado (2014) | Switched from Frye by rule amendment effective 2012; follows Daubert and Kumho. |
| Arkansas | Daubert / Daubert-type | Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Foote, 14 S.W.3d 512 (Ark. 2000) | Follows Daubert and Kumho under Ark. R. Evid. 702. |
| California | Frye | People v. Kelly, 549 P.2d 1240 (Cal. 1976); People v. Leahy (1994) | Kelly/Frye applies to novel scientific techniques; Sargon (2012) adds trial-court gatekeeping on expert reasoning. New Evid. Code §801.1 (eff. 2024) addresses medical-causation opinions. |
| Colorado | Daubert / Daubert-type | People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. 2001) | Daubert-type reliability inquiry under CRE 702; courts may, but need not, weigh the specific Daubert factors. |
| Connecticut | Daubert / Daubert-type | State v. Porter, 698 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1997); Code of Evid. §7-2 | Adopted Daubert via Porter. |
| Delaware | Daubert / Daubert-type | M.G. Bancorporation v. LeBeau, 737 A.2d 513 (Del. 1999) | Follows Daubert and Kumho under D.R.E. 702. |
| District of Columbia | Daubert / Daubert-type | Motorola Inc. v. Murray, 147 A.3d 751 (D.C. 2016) (en banc) | Frye's birthplace abandoned it — the D.C. Court of Appeals adopted FRE 702/Daubert in 2016. |
| Florida | Daubert / Daubert-type | In re Amendments to the Fla. Evidence Code, 278 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2019); §90.702 | Daubert since May 23, 2019, ending a Frye/Daubert tug-of-war. Older guides still listing Florida as Frye are wrong. |
| Georgia | Daubert / Daubert-type | O.C.G.A. §24-7-702 (civil eff. 2013; all proceedings eff. July 1, 2022) | HB 478 (2022) extended Daubert to criminal cases and repealed the old Harper standard. |
| Hawaii | Hybrid / Modified | State v. Vliet, 19 P.3d 42 (Haw. 2001); H.R.E. 702 | Daubert not expressly adopted, but instructive in applying Hawaii's Rule 702. |
| Idaho | Hybrid / Modified | Weeks v. E. Idaho Health Servs., 153 P.3d 1180 (Idaho 2007); I.R.E. 702 | Daubert not adopted; courts borrow some Daubert factors to test scientific validity. |
| Illinois | Frye | Ill. R. Evid. 702; In re Det. of New, 21 N.E.3d 406 (Ill. 2014) | General-acceptance test applies to new or novel scientific methodologies; non-novel expert testimony is assessed on qualifications and helpfulness. |
| Indiana | Hybrid / Modified | Ind. R. Evid. 702(b); Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011) | Reliability of scientific principles required; Daubert is helpful but not binding, with no mandatory factor test. |
| Iowa | Hybrid / Modified | Ranes v. Adams Labs., 778 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 2010); Iowa R. Evid. 5.702 | Rejects Frye without adopting Daubert; Daubert factors inform novel or complex scientific evidence only. |
| Kansas | Daubert / Daubert-type | K.S.A. 60-456(b) (2014 amendment) | Adopted Daubert by statute in 2014, ending decades under Frye. |
| Kentucky | Daubert / Daubert-type | Mitchell v. Commonwealth (Ky. 1995); Toyota Motor Corp. v. Gregory (2004) | Follows Daubert and Kumho under KRE 702. |
| Louisiana | Daubert / Daubert-type | State v. Foret, 628 So. 2d 1116 (La. 1993); La. C.E. art. 702 | Early Daubert adopter. |
| Maine | Own standard | State v. Williams, 388 A.2d 500 (Me. 1978); Searles v. Fleetwood Homes (2005) | Neither Frye nor Daubert: evidence is admissible if shown sufficiently reliable, even without general acceptance. |
| Maryland | Daubert / Daubert-type | Rochkind v. Stevenson, 236 A.3d 630 (Md. 2020); Katz v. Parkway Neuroscience (2023) | Retired its Frye-Reed line in 2020; all Daubert factors relevant, none dispositive. |
| Massachusetts | Daubert / Daubert-type | Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 641 N.E.2d 1342 (Mass. 1994) | Daubert-Lanigan: reliability may be shown under Daubert or, alternatively, by general acceptance. |
| Michigan | Daubert / Daubert-type | M.R.E. 702; Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler, 685 N.W.2d 391 (Mich. 2004) | Follows Daubert and Kumho. |
| Minnesota | Frye | State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. 1980); Goeb v. Tharaldson (2000) | Frye-Mack: novel scientific evidence must be generally accepted AND have foundational reliability in the particular case. |
| Mississippi | Daubert / Daubert-type | Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003); M.R.E. 702 (2003 amendment) | Adopted the modified Daubert standard when Rule 702 was amended in May 2003. |
| Missouri | Daubert / Daubert-type | §490.065 RSMo (2017); State v. Marshall (Mo. Ct. App. 2020) | Daubert-tracking statute since 2017; an older standard persists in certain domestic-relations actions. |
| Montana | Hybrid / Modified | M.R.E. 702; State v. Price, 171 P.3d 293 (Mont. 2007) | Liberal admissibility generally; Daubert reserved for novel scientific evidence. |
| Nebraska | Daubert / Daubert-type | Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 631 N.W.2d 862 (Neb. 2001) | Adopted Daubert/Kumho, replacing Frye. |
| Nevada | Own standard | NRS 50.275; Higgs v. State, 222 P.3d 648 (Nev. 2010) | Follows neither Frye nor Daubert; Daubert factors may inform but are not mechanically applied. |
| New Hampshire | Daubert / Daubert-type | RSA 516:29-a; Baker Valley Lumber v. Ingersoll-Rand (N.H. 2002) | Daubert by statute and case law. |
| New Jersey | Daubert / Daubert-type | In re Accutane Litig., 234 N.J. 340 (2018); State v. Olenowski, 253 N.J. 133 (2023) | Daubert-type standard in civil (2018) and criminal/quasi-criminal (2023) cases, while declining the full federal Daubert case law. Charts predating 2023 miss the criminal-side change. |
| New Mexico | Daubert / Daubert-type | State v. Alberico, 861 P.2d 192 (N.M. 1993); Acosta v. Shell (2016) | Daubert for scientific testimony; Kumho not followed — factors don't extend to non-scientific experts. |
| New York | Frye | People v. Wesley, 633 N.E.2d 451 (N.Y. 1994) | Frye governs novel scientific evidence; courts add a case-specific foundation inquiry. Periodic reform proposals have not displaced Frye. |
| North Carolina | Daubert / Daubert-type | N.C. R. Evid. 702 (2011 amendment); State v. McGrady, 787 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. 2016) | McGrady confirmed the 2011 amendment adopted the federal Daubert framework. |
| North Dakota | Own standard | N.D. R. Evid. 702; State v. Hernandez, 707 N.W.2d 449 (N.D. 2005) | Declines Daubert/Kumho; generous allowance of expert testimony with broad trial-court discretion. |
| Ohio | Daubert / Daubert-type | Miller v. Bike Athletic Co., 687 N.E.2d 735 (Ohio 1998); Evid. R. 702 | Follows Daubert. |
| Oklahoma | Daubert / Daubert-type | Christian v. Gray, 65 P.3d 591 (Okla. 2003); 12 O.S. §2702 | Follows Daubert and Kumho. |
| Oregon | Daubert / Daubert-type | State v. Brown, 687 P.2d 751 (Or. 1984); State v. O'Key (1995) | Home-grown Brown/O'Key reliability test that parallels Daubert for scientific evidence. |
| Pennsylvania | Frye | Pa.R.E. 702(c); Grady v. Frito-Lay, 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003); Walsh v. BASF Corp., 234 A.3d 446 (Pa. 2020) | Frye's general-acceptance rule is written into Rule 702(c) itself; Walsh (2020) reaffirmed Frye and limited the trial court's role to assessing methodology. |
| Rhode Island | Daubert / Daubert-type | Raimbeault v. Takeuchi Mfg., 772 A.2d 1056 (R.I. 2001); R.I. R. Evid. 702 | Follows Daubert and Kumho. |
| South Carolina | Own standard | State v. Council, 515 S.E.2d 508 (S.C. 1999); State v. White (2009) | Neither Frye nor Daubert: the Council factors govern scientific testimony; non-scientific testimony is exempt from them. |
| South Dakota | Daubert / Daubert-type | Kuper v. Lincoln-Union Elec. Co., 557 N.W.2d 748 (S.D. 1996); SDCL 19-19-702 (eff. 2016) | Adopted Daubert in Kuper; the 2016 statute adopts the language of Federal Rule 702. |
| Tennessee | Hybrid / Modified | McDaniel v. CSX Transp., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997); Tenn. R. Evid. 702 | Daubert not adopted; McDaniel factors are helpful, and the rule's "substantially assist" requirement sets a higher bar than the federal rule. |
| Texas | Daubert / Daubert-type | E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995); Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998); Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) | Robinson (civil) and Kelly (criminal) supply Daubert-consistent reliability tests; Gammill extended the reliability requirement to all expert testimony. |
| Utah | Own standard | Utah R. Evid. 702 (2007 amendment); State v. Rimmasch (1989) | Neither Frye nor Daubert: a "threshold showing" of reliability, generally more permissive than the federal standard. Guides listing Utah as Frye are wrong. |
| Vermont | Daubert / Daubert-type | 985 Assocs. v. Daewoo Elecs., 945 A.2d 381 (Vt. 2008); V.R.E. 702 | Follows Daubert. |
| Virginia | Own standard | Va. Code §8.01-401.3; John v. Im, 559 S.E.2d 694 (Va. 2002) | Neither Frye nor Daubert: Virginia's own precedent excludes speculative opinions or those with insufficient factual basis. |
| Washington | Frye | State v. Copeland, 922 P.2d 1304 (Wash. 1996); Erickson v. Pharmacia (Wash. 2025) | Firmly Frye — reaffirmed by the state supreme court as recently as 2025. |
| West Virginia | Daubert / Daubert-type | Wilt v. Buracker, 443 S.E.2d 196 (W. Va. 1993); Anstey v. Ballard (2016) | Daubert/Wilt applies to scientific evidence; non-scientific testimony assessed under Rule 702 generally. |
| Wisconsin | Daubert / Daubert-type | Wis. Stat. §907.02 (2011); State v. Jones (2018) | Daubert by statute since 2011. |
| Wyoming | Daubert / Daubert-type | Bunting v. Jamieson, 984 P.2d 467 (Wyo. 1999); W.R.E. 702 | Follows Daubert and Kumho. |
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was amended effective December 1, 2023, clarifying that the proponent must establish each admissibility requirement to the court by a preponderance of the evidence — a gatekeeping emphasis that federal courts are still absorbing circuit by circuit. State analogues vary in whether and how they track the amendment.
In compiling this reference we found current, high-ranking guides that still list Florida as a Frye state (it adopted Daubert in 2019) and law-firm charts that miss New Jersey's 2023 extension of its Daubert-type standard to criminal cases. Standards change by statute, rule amendment, and decision — which is why this page carries an as-of date and an annual re-verification commitment.
The standard shapes more than motion practice. In a Daubert jurisdiction, an expert's methodology, error rates, and application to the facts are all fair game at a pretrial hearing; in a Frye jurisdiction, the fight centers on general acceptance of the technique. An expert whose opinions have survived challenges under the governing standard is a different asset than one who has never been tested —which is why challenge history is part of vetting.
Homestead Experts places vetted expert witnesses nationwide — credentials, active practice, and challenge history screened against the standard your expert will actually face. Speak with the matched expert before you commit. No upfront fees.
Explore expert witness servicesExplore expert witness servicesHow this table is sourced: Each entry is cross-verified against at least two independent sources, including state court opinions and court-hosted rule texts, state statute databases, and published 50-state legal surveys. Last verified September 2026; re-verified annually.
Disclaimer: This reference is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Standards for the admissibility of expert testimony are subject to change by statute, rule amendment, and judicial decision, and their application varies by case type and context within many jurisdictions. Verify the current controlling authority in your jurisdiction before relying on it.