Cited by

An abuse of discretion exists when the trial court makes an error of law, ¶ 9 (2015), or when "the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's decision, is 'devoid of competent evidence to support' the decision," ¶ 5 (1999) (citation omitted).

An abuse of discretion exists when the trial court makes an error of law, ¶ 9 (2015), or when “the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support’ the decision,” ¶ 5 (1999) (citation omitted).

25 STATE V. PRESTON ALTON STRONG Opinion of the Court weight and credibility of evidence.” ¶ 18 (2015).

“An error of law constitutes an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 9 (2015), as does an order unsupported by the record, ¶ 8 (App. 2012).

“Rather, ‘[c]ross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.’” ¶ 11 (2015) (quoting 2012 comment to Rule 702).

¶ 18 (2015) (explaining that the superior court should “allow the jury to exercise its fact-finding function, for it is the jury’s exclusive province to assess the weight and credibility of evidence”).

¶16 We review a superior court’s exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 9 (2015), even when raised at summary judgment, Baker v. Univ.

“An error of law constitutes an abuse of discretion,” ¶ 9 (2015), as does an order unsupported by the record, ¶ 8 (App. 2012).

¶ 7 (App. 2021) ( ¶ 9 (2015)); see Maricopa Cnty.

(2012); ¶ 14 (2015) (“The overall purpose of Rule 702 .

Although Rule 702 “recognizes that trial courts should serve as gatekeepers” to ensure expert evidence is reliable (and helpful) to the finder of fact, this “gatekeeping function is not intended to replace the adversary system.” ¶ 14 (2015) (citing Ariz. R. of Evid.

¶ 18 (2015) (“In close cases, the trial court should allow the jury to exercise its fact-finding function, for it is the jury’s exclusive province to assess the weight and credibility of evidence.”); Rasor, 244 Ariz. at 429, ¶ 24 (recognizing that even though defendant criticized expert’s failure to review patie

it should be tested by the adversary process—competing expert testimony and active cross- examination—rather than excluded from jurors’ scrutiny for fear that they will not grasp its complexities or satisfactorily weigh its inadequacies.” ¶ 18 (2015) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 18 (2015) (“In close cases, the trial court should allow the jury to exercise its fact-finding function, for it is the jury’s exclusive province to assess the weight and credibility of evidence.”).

¶ 18 (2015) (noting the adversarial system allows the opposing party to question the reliability and application of an expert's experience and knowledge).

3 STATE v. PRINGLE Decision of the Court abuse of discretion.” ¶ 6 (2016) ( ¶ 9 (2015)).