Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lindsey, 720 P.2d 73.

154 citing documents.

State v. Giron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Testimony about general social and behavioral science principles is admissible to “assist the jury in 4 STATE v. GIRON Decision of the Court deciding a contested issue, including issues pertaining to accuracy or credibility of a witness’ recollection or testimony.”
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Centeno-Sarabia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-41, -14 (App. 1997); -51, -80 (App. 1990).
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 325 P.3d 996 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 325 P.3d 996 Ariz. 2014
¶14 –83, –53 (1986), from opining on the veracity of the children’s accusations or addressing hypothetical situations aligned with the facts of this case, her testimony did not “fit” the facts of this case, making it “unhelpful.” See Rule
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde 315 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2014
Chapple, 135 Ariz. at 297, 660 P.2d at 1224.
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(amendment “not intended to supplant traditional jury determinations of credibility” or “preclude the testimony of experience-based experts”); 13 (permitting generalized expert testimony about behavioral characteristics of sex-abuse victims); -75, -76 (1986) (generalized expert testimony about behavioral patterns common among child victims allowed so long as not commenting on accuracy, reliability, or credibility of particular witness); -93, -20 (1983) (trial court erroneously pr
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado 304 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-74, -75 (1986); -82, -52 (1986).
State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado 303 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado 303 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
See Walker, 208 F.3d at 587 n.2 (nothing requires expert to opine on ultimate issue); see also Primiano, 598 F.3d at 565 (medical knowledge often uncertain; testimony need not be conclusive to be useful and reliable); (experts not required to testify to opinion on precise questions before trier of fact).
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Herrera 243 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
6 , (“ ‘[A] party cannot complain about a result he caused.’ ”), quoting M. Udall & J. Livermore, Law of Evidence § 11 at 11 (2d ed. 1982).
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 test
Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Explained Felder v. Physiotherapy Associates 158 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
The function of an expert is to “provide testimony on subjects that are beyond the common sense, experience and education of the average juror.” , ( , ).
State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
(holding that reversal meant convictions were not prior convictions for purposes of harsher sentence); , (same).
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Speers 98 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Expert testimony is admissible “where it may assist the jury in deciding a contested issue, including issues pertaining to accuracy or credibility of a witness’ recollection or testimony.” State v. *131 Lindsey
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
(stating that it is “neither necessary nor advisable to ask for a witness’ opinion of whether the defendant committed the crime with which he was charged”); , (noting that we generally do “not permit expert testimony on how the jury should decide the case”).
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Blakley 65 P.3d 77 Ariz. 2003
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
Chapple, 135 Ariz. at 297 , 660 P.2d at 1224
State v. Logan 17 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Logan 17 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
Logerquist v. McVey 1 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2000
¶ 21 In State v. Lindsey, for example, we dealt with the question of expert testimony regarding “behavior patterns of victims of ‘in-home incestuous-type [child] molesting.’ ”
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
State v. Sharp 973 P.2d 1171 Ariz. 1999
(holding that an objection raised in a motion to suppress evidence preserves the issue for appeal despite the lack of further objection at trial).
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Hughes 969 P.2d 1184 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Lujan 967 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1998
State v. Lujan 967 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1998
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. Mott 931 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1997
State v. Curry 931 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Curry 931 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-74 , -75 (1986); , Hamilton, 177 Ariz. at 409 , 868 P.2d at 992 .
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
State v. Hyde 921 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1996
Florez v. Sargeant 917 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1996