State v. Lindsey
A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.
- Decided
- Citation
- 149 Ariz. 472 (1986)
What did the court decide?
The Arizona Supreme Court held that an expert may explain general behavior patterns of child sexual-abuse victims to help jurors weigh testimony, but may not give an opinion on whether a particular witness is truthful, on the truthfulness of witnesses of that type, or on the percentage of such witnesses who tell the truth. Here the State's expert said most people in her field believe very few incest victims lie and that the likelihood was "very strong" in this case. The court said "the law does not permit expert testimony on how the jury should decide the case," reversed the two incest convictions, and ordered a new trial on those counts. The other convictions were affirmed, but a later supplemental opinion sent them back for resentencing.
Why does it matter?
This is the leading Arizona case on the line between expert testimony that helps jurors judge credibility and testimony that tells jurors who is lying. It arose from a State expert in a child sexual-abuse case, but Arizona courts apply the rule to experts on either side, including defense experts (see State v. Schoenhardt).
Where can I read the full opinion?
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Always read the full opinion and check whether later cases have limited or changed it. A summary can leave out important details.