Opinion ID: 1159702
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reversal Moots Any Error in Excluding Defendant's Expert Witness.

Text: Worthy argues that the superior court abused its discretion by prohibiting his expert, Dr. LaGrande, from testifying to rebut the prosecution's case-in-chief. [18] The superior court based its exclusion decision in part on the untimeliness of Worthy's expert witness disclosure. [19] Because the exclusion of Chris's testimony requires reversal and remand for retrial, it is not necessary to decide whether the court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. LaGrande's testimony. Assuming Worthy is retried, the superior court can revisit the foundation issue in context of the evidence before it at retrial. Worthy will also have an adequate opportunity to make a timely expert witness disclosure before retrial. Because Dr. LaGrande's testimony will necessarily require reference to T.J.S.'s previous sexual conduct, AS 12.45.045(a) and Alaska Evidence Rule 404(a)(2) may affect the admissibility of Dr. LaGrande's testimony. Alaska Evidence Rule 703 also potentially applies. And, as expert testimony, it must meet the requirements of Alaska Evidence Rule 702 discussed in State v. Coon. [20]