Opinion ID: 867478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Use of Reports in Examination of Witnesses

Text: ¶ 165 Moody claims that the prosecutor's use of the reports to bolster Dr. Sullivan's testimony and to discredit that of Drs. Goldberg and Lewis violated this court's holding in Lundstrom, 161 Ariz. at 141, 776 P.2d at 1067. In Lundstrom, this court stated that while Arizona Rule of Evidence 703 allows an expert to testify to facts or data not admissible in evidence, if the testifying expert merely acts as a conduit for another non-testifying expert's opinion, the `expert opinion' is hearsay and is inadmissible. 161 Ariz. at 148, 776 P.2d at 1074. Although Moody raises a colorable claim that the prosecutor's actions here violated Lundstrom, he failed to lodge a contemporaneous objection based on hearsay or confrontation grounds. [13] Consequently, his burden is to demonstrate not merely that a Lundstrom violation has occurred, but that this violation rendered it impossible for him to have received a fair trial. See Bolton, 182 Ariz. at 297, 896 P.2d at 837 (stating that matters not raised at trial are reviewed for fundamental error); Smith, 114 Ariz. at 420, 561 P.2d at 744 (noting that fundamental error is error of such dimensions that it cannot be said it is possible for a defendant to have had a fair trial). He develops no such argument and has not met the burden of demonstrating how the use of the non-testifying doctors' opinions here constitutes fundamental error.