State v. Salazar
A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.
- Decided
- Citation
- 182 Ariz. 604 (App. 1995)
What did the court decide?
The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the exclusion of a defense expert who would have testified that there was a "90 percent" likelihood that a person inexperienced with firearms would be disarmed by an attacker if he tried to use the gun in self-defense. The court saw no connection between that opinion and the defendant's actions or his claimed belief that deadly force was necessary, since there was no evidence he fired because he feared being disarmed. It also said that whether self-defense was reasonable is generally a question for jurors' common sense, so expert testimony on that issue is generally not allowed. The conviction was still reversed for other reasons: the trial judge should have been disqualified, and the defense was wrongly barred from asking two State witnesses about their juvenile probation status to show possible bias.
Why does it matter?
Arizona courts still cite this case for the rule that jurors, not experts, decide whether force used in self-defense was reasonable. An expert's opinion also has to connect to the facts and to what the defendant actually believed.
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.