Cited by

¶51 Rule 702 allows a witness “who is qualified as an expert” to testify if, among other things, the witness’s “specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence” or “determine a fact in issue.” The trial court serves as gatekeeper in evaluating an expert’s opinion “with the aim of ensuring such testimony is reliable and helpful to the jury.”

“Trial courts serve as the ‘gatekeepers’ of admissibility for expert testimony, with the aim of ensuring such testimony is reliable and helpful to the jury.” ¶ 12 (2016) (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.

See Cisco, No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0065, ¶¶ 10-11; ¶¶ 11-16 (App. 2014), vacated in part on other grounds, (firearms identification evidence admissible through expert testimony under Rule 702).

702).7 To qualify as an expert, “he or she need only possess ‘skill and knowledge superior to that of [people] in general.’” (alteration in Romero) ().

Under Rule 702, “[f]or a witness to be qualified as an expert, he or she need only possess ‘skill and knowledge superior to that of [people] in general.’” ¶ 17 (2016) (citations omitted).

As previously indicated, under Rule 702, “[f]or a witness to be qualified as an expert, he or she need only possess ‘skill and knowledge superior to that of [people] in general.’” ¶ 17 (2016) (second alteration in original) ().

We review a court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence over hearsay objections for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 5 (App. 2010), but review interpretation of the rules of evidence de novo, ¶ 5 (App. 2020) ( ¶ 11 (2016)).

¶ 11 (2016); Bolton, 182 Ariz. at 309.

¶16 In evaluating whether expert opinion will assist the trier of fact, the superior court serves as a gatekeeper, “with the aim of ensuring such testimony is reliable and helpful.” ¶ 12 (2016) (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.

¶ 7 (App. 2014), vacated in part on other grounds

A qualified expert “need only possess ‘skill and knowledge superior to that of [people] in general.’” ¶ 17 (2016) (alteration in original) ().

expert” by knowledge or experience may render opinion testimony if the witness’s “specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” In evaluating whether expert opinion will assist the trier of fact, the superior court serves as a gatekeeper, “with the aim of ensuring such testimony is reliable and helpful to the jury.” ¶ 12 (2016) (citing Ariz. R. Evid.

¶ 23 (2016) (stating that an expert’s “lack of experience in performing toolmark analyses and firearm identification experiments might have affected the weight a juror would give his testimony, but it did not bar its admission”); see also McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., ¶ 16 (App. 2013) (

We review the admission or exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 7 (2017) (admission); ¶ 11 (2016) (exclusion), but interpret the Arizona Rules of Evidence de novo, Gill, 242 Ariz. at 3, ¶ 7.

" State v. Romero , , ¶ 17, quoting State v. Girdler , , 490, (first alteration added, second alteration in Romero ).

¶43 In evaluating whether expert opinion will assist the trier of fact, the trial court serves as a gatekeeper, “with the aim of ensuring such testimony is reliable and helpful[.]” ¶ 12 (2016) (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.

¶ 27, (“[W]e have recognized that a trial court’s admission of disputed expert testimony leaves to the fact-finder the role of assessing its weight and credibility.”); (finding that disputed facts in the case “w

(Romero I), vacated in part, , (Romero II).

–12 ¶¶ 25– 28, –64 (2016) (addressing alternative grounds relied on by trial court to exclude evidence).

11-12 ¶¶ 25-28, -64 (2016) (addressing alternative grounds relied on by trial court to exclude evidence).