State v. Schoenhardt
A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.
- Decided
- Citation
- No. 1 CA-CR 21-0546 (Ariz. App. July 5, 2022) (memorandum decision)
What did the court decide?
In an aggravated assault case where the defendant claimed self-defense, the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the trial judge's decision to keep out the defense's use-of-force expert, a former police officer with 20 years of experience. The court said the expert's opinions that the defendant's display of a gun was justified and that the other man was the real aggressor were not relevant, because neither person was a police officer, and because experts may not tell jurors how to decide the case. The expert's criticism of the police investigation (not interviewing one witness and not separating witnesses) was properly excluded as a waste of time because it repeated points the jury already heard: the officer testified that separating witnesses and talking to all of them is good police practice, admitted he did not interview that witness, and defense counsel criticized him for not following those practices. Because the issue was raised for the first time on appeal, the court reviewed only for fundamental error.
Why does it matter?
This is a memorandum decision. It is not precedential and may be cited only as allowed by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c). It shows how Arizona judges may treat police-trained experts in civilian self-defense cases. The court did not say testimony about investigative practices is never allowed; it found that this particular testimony added nothing new to what the jury had already heard.
Where can I read the full opinion?
Read the full opinion on Arizona Judicial Branch →
Always read the full opinion and check whether later cases have limited or changed it. A summary can leave out important details.