Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Owens, 540 P.2d 695.

44 citing documents.

State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Worrell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In doing so, the expert may provide an “opinion upon a subject even though it may involve an opinion on an ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact.” see also Ariz. R. Evid.
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
ssist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” This court has interpreted Rule 702 to preclude expert testimony, however, if “the subject of inquiry is one of such common knowledge that people of ordinary education could reach a conclusion as intelligently as the witness.” , ( , ).
State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
State v. Plew 745 P.2d 102 Ariz. 1987
(physician allowed to testify about the abnormally deep laceration of victim’s neck).
State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Lindsey 720 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
State v. Poland 698 P.2d 183 Ariz. 1985
The test for preclusion of expert testimony “is whether the subject of inquiry is one of such common knowledge that people of ordinary education could reach a conclusion as intelligently as the witness * * *.”
State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
State v. Hallman 668 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1983
The proper admission of expert testimony depends upon “whether the subject of inquiry is one of such common knowledge that people of ordinary education could reach a conclusion as intelligently as the witness or whether, on the other hand, the matter is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact.”
State v. Hersch 662 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Hersch 662 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
State v. Chapple 660 P.2d 1208 Ariz. 1983
State v. Brown 656 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Brown 656 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Dickey 608 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1980
State v. Dickey 608 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1980
State v. Vaughan 602 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Vaughan 602 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Starr 581 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Starr 581 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Killian 577 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Killian 577 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Prevost 574 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Prevost 574 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Fears 570 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1977
State v. Fears 570 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1977
State v. Young 569 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1977
State v. Young 569 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1977
State v. Youtsey 570 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Youtsey 570 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Stoneman 566 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1977
State v. Stoneman 566 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1977
State v. Means 566 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1977
State v. Means 566 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1977
rimary consideration in determining the admissibility of expert opinion evidence is whether the subject of inquiry is one of such common knowledge that people of ordinary education could reach a conclusion as intelligently as the witness or whether, on the other hand, the matter is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact.”
State v. Wilson 553 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1976
State v. Wilson 553 P.2d 235 Ariz. 1976
American Honda Motor Co., , , Rule 21.3(c), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.