Cited by

401, 402; ¶ 16, 587 ¶ 20 (2017) (explaining “expert testimony that explains a victim’s seemingly inconsistent behavior is admissible to aid jurors in evaluating the victim’s credibility”); -74 (1986); –64 (1985) (noting expert testimony on response of rape

“We review a trial court’s admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion, which can include errors of law.”

We review the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (2017), and—because Driffin objected to the State’s motion in limine regarding the detective’s testimony—we review any error for harmless error, ¶ 5 (App. 2014) (“[W]here a motion in limine is made and ruled upon, the objection raised in that motion is preser

2022) (finding child’s behavioral changes were corroborative of sexual abuse); ¶ 16 (2017) (“Conversely, expert testimony that explains a victim’s seemingly inconsistent behavior is admissible to aid jurors in evaluating the victim’s 6 STATE v. TUPA Decision of the Court credibility.”).

s a shorthand way of saying that the evidence is offered to implicitly or explicitly suggest that because the defendant” possesses “one or more of an informal compilation of characteristics or an abstract of characteristics typically displayed by persons engaged in a particular kind of activity,” the jury “should conclude that the defendant must have committed the crime charged.” -86, ¶ 14 (2017) (citation omitted).

“We review [the superior] court’s admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion, which can include errors of law.” ¶ 11 (2017).

¶ 16 (2017) (“[E]xpert testimony that explains a victim’s seemingly inconsistent behavior is admissible to aid jurors in evaluating the victim’s credibility.”).

–88, ¶¶ 16, 18–22 (2017).

2 A “cold” or “blind” expert has “not reviewed any case-specific evidence and [does not] testify about any of the events in the case.” ¶ 5 (2017).

Stated differently, it is “a loose assortment of general, often contradictory, characteristics and behaviors” “offered to implicitly or explicitly suggest that because the defendant has those characteristics, a jury should conclude that the defendant must have committed the crime charged.” ¶ 10 (1998); –86, ¶ 14 (2017).

¶ 14 (2017); ¶ 10 (1998).

Indeed, Suazo argues the State presented testimony that “created a high risk that the jury would convict” him, not for his own conduct, but for the conduct of others.

In light of our supreme court’s we affirm.