Arizona Supreme Court Allows Sexual Abuse Expert Witness Testimony, Finds Rule 702 Allows General Testimony

Case: State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado, No. CR-13-0244-PR, Arizona Supreme Court, May 29, 2014 Background: Martin David Salazar-Mercado was convicted in Pima County Superior Court for molesting his cousin’s children. He was sentenced to life in prison. Sexual Abuse Expert Witness: Dr. Wendy Dutton, a forensic interviewer, presented expert testimony on behalf of

ByKristin Casler

|

Published on June 30, 2014

|

Updated onJune 22, 2020

Case:

State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado, No. CR-13-0244-PR, Arizona Supreme Court, May 29, 2014

Background:

Martin David Salazar-Mercado was convicted in Pima County Superior Court for molesting his cousin’s children. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Sexual Abuse Expert Witness:

Dr. Wendy Dutton, a forensic interviewer, presented expert testimony on behalf of the state regarding sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS). The trial court denied Mercado’s motion to exclude the testimony. Therefore, Dutton opined about how child victims perceive sexual abuse and behave regarding it. She also described why children make false allegations of abuse.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the expert’s admission and Mercado’s conviction.

Admissibility of Sexual Abuse Expert Witness:

The Arizona Supreme Court, in an issue of first impression, found that Arizona Rule of Evidence 702 does not preclude admission of “cold” expert testimony that educates the fact finder about general principles without considering the particular facts of the case.

The high court rejected Mercado’s argument that Rule 702(d) requires that an expert, in order to testify, must reliably apply principles and methods to the particular facts of the case. It agreed with the state that Rule 702(d) requires that if the expert applies principles and methods to the facts of the case, the expert must do so reliably.

Hence, the high court said the historical background of Rule 702 and the advisory committee notes of the federal rule permit admission of general “cold” testimony that does not comment on the specific facts of the case.

In this case, Dutton’s testimony might have helped the jury to understand why the children delayed reporting the alleged abuse and why their statements might have been inconsistent, the high court said. Consequently, her testimony was admissible under Rule 702(a), the high court said.

About the author

Kristin Casler

Kristin Casler

Kristin Casler is a seasoned legal writer and journalist with an extensive background in litigation news coverage. For 17 years, she served as the editor for LexisNexis Mealey’s litigation news monitor, a role that positioned her at the forefront of reporting on pivotal legal developments. Her expertise includes covering cases related to the Supreme Court's expert admissibility ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., a critical area in both civil and criminal litigation concerning the challenges of 'junk science' testimony.

Kristin's work primarily involves reporting on a diverse range of legal subjects, with particular emphasis on cases in asbestos litigation, insurance, personal injury, antitrust, mortgage lending, and testimony issues in conviction cases. Her contributions as a journalist have been instrumental in providing in-depth, informed analysis on the evolving landscape of these complex legal areas. Her ability to dissect and communicate intricate legal proceedings and rulings makes her a valuable resource in the legal journalism field.

background image

Subscribe to our newsletter

Join our newsletter to stay up to date on legal news, insights and product updates from Expert Institute.