Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tucker, 798 P.2d 1349.

38 citing documents.

State v. Self Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Self Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Bible, 175 Ariz. at 588; see also Moran, 151 Ariz. at 383 (explaining that an error caused by expert testimony regarding the victim’s veracity may be harmless “[i]n [some] cases”); (concluding that social worker’s improper opinion testimony regarding victim’s truthfulness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); (holding that testimony of expert witness in violation of Lindsey and Moran standards was not harmless because it “was the victim's word against the defendant's”).
State v. Haskie 378 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Haskie 378 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶16 “[A]n expert witness may testify about the general characteristics and behavior of [a defendant] and victim[] if the information imparted is not likely to be within the knowledge of most lay persons.”
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. at 594 ¶ 15
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Webster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(holding that trial court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony as to believability of the victim).
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Richard Portugal Ortiz 360 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
4 STATE v. ORTIZ Opinion of the Court such victims should be admitted.” (“[A]n expert witness may testify about the general characteristics and behavior of sex offenders and victims if the information imparted is not likely to be within the knowledge of most lay persons” so long as the expert does not “quantify nor express an opinion about the veracit
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Lindsey, 149 Ariz. at 474, 720 P.2d at 75 (finding that testimony from an expert that most people in the expert’s field feel that incest victims do not lie was improper opinion testimony and reversible error); (finding reversible error where expert witness was “allowed to testify as to the believability of the victim in violation of Lindsey and Moran“); Reimer, 189 Ariz. at 242, 941 P.2d at 915 (finding reversible error based on officer’s testimony addressing credibility of victim’s sta
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Cooperman 282 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
6-97, 1223-24 (1983) (expert testimony regarding general reliability of eye-witness identification admissible without any opinion regarding accuracy of specific identification made by witnesses); (expert testimony regarding “general practices of drug organizations” relevant and admissible); (expert witness may testify as to general characteristics and behavior of sex offenders and victims if information not within knowledge of lay persons).
State v. Rhodes 200 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Rhodes 200 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-75 , -76 (1986) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing an expert to testify regarding the percentage of incest victims who lie); , (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony as to the believability of the victim).
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
111 , ); , (behavioral characteristics of child molesters and victims); State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260 , 690 N.E.2d 881 (1998) (Frye inapplicable to expert’s testimony that alleged child victim’s behavior, including delayed disclosure and recantation, is consistent with behavior expert
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
See Thompson, 167 Ariz. at 234 , 805 P.2d at 1055 (“In most instances, hearsay evidence will not satisfy the ‘more probative’ requirement of subsection B of rule 803(24), because the declarant’s testimony usually will lessen the probative value of the hearsay statements.”)
State v. Reimer 941 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Reimer 941 P.2d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(evidence of child’s recantation of accusations against defendant did not justify introduction of the child’s prior consistent statements to a police officer: “The defense removed this basis for admissibility by foregoing use of the recantation.”).
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-133607 920 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JV-133607 920 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Salazar 898 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Salazar 898 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
702; -346 , -1355 (App.1990).
Adams v. Amore 895 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Adams v. Amore 895 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Huerta 826 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Huerta 826 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
As this court has previously said, “the average person doesn’t need the opinion of an expert to know that clarity, certainty, consistency, and plausibility are all touchstones of veracity and that the appearance and manner of that person who is relating a story may be a key to that person’s truthfulness.” -48 , -57 (App.1990).
State v. Thompson 820 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Thompson 820 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
-44 , -53 (App.1990) (admission of child’s hearsay statements made to police officer, detective, and social worker highly prejudicial).
State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Lopez 822 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
EXPERT TESTIMONY Defendant argues that Dr. Harrison’s P.2d 73 (1986)
State v. Crane 799 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Crane 799 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990