Opinion ID: 2622875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Excluding Testimony of the Defendant's Expert Witness Regarding the Effects of Alcohol on Memory?

Text: The Defendant sought court approval to retain an Arizona Psychologist at county expense who would testify regarding reasons why a complainant would make and continue making false allegations and how alcohol intoxication impacts a person's ability to obtain and remember information. The State responded with a motion in limine to prohibit the introduction of such testimony. The district court granted the State's motion on the ground that the proposed testimony would not assist the trier of fact because information that memories may be faulty, that they may be influenced by motive, and that they may be inaccurate due to the ingestion of mind-altering drugs is not beyond the realm of common knowledge in the community. To be admissible, the expert's testimony must assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Swallow v. Emergency Medicine of Idaho, P.A., 138 Idaho 589, 592, 67 P.3d 68, 71 (2003). An expert's opinion is also inadmissible if it concerns conclusions or opinions that the average juror would be qualified to draw from the facts utilizing the juror's common sense and normal experience. Athay v. Stacey, 142 Idaho 360, 367, 128 P.3d 897, 904 (2005). The admissibility of expert testimony is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court, and the court's ruling will not be overturned absent an abuse of that discretion. Id. at 366, 128 P.3d at 903. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling the proffered testimony was inadmissible.