Opinion ID: 867411
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Motion to Strike Testimony of Dr. Scialli

Text: ¶ 54 The defense argues that Dr. Scialli is not a qualified expert under A.R.S. § 13-703.02, the pretrial screening statute the trial court was attempting to follow, and his testimony should therefore have been precluded. ¶ 55 Whether a statute applies in a particular situation is a question of law, which we review de novo. Schoneberger v. Oelze, 208 Ariz. 591, 594, ¶ 12, 96 P.3d 1078, 1081 (App.2004). We review the decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion. State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40, 49, ¶ 29, 97 P.3d 865, 874 (2004). ¶ 56 Section 13-703.02(K)(3) defines a psychological expert as a psychologist licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 19.1 with at least two years' experience in the testing, evaluation and diagnosis of mental retardation. [11] Dr. Scialli is a psychiatrist, not a psychologist. The record shows that he has had training in mental retardation for a child psychiatry fellowship, has been a consultant with several government agencies, has evaluated and consulted on children with mental retardation for Child Protective Services, and has been the acting medical director for the Division of Developmental Disabilities, the agency responsible for the care of mentally retarded children and adults. ¶ 57 This court in Grell I acknowledged that A.R.S. § 13-703.02 should be applied to the hearing on remand only insofar as is practical. The trial court reasonably concluded that it was not practicable to apply the statute on this issue. The State hired Dr. Scialli before it could possibly have known the yet-unpassed statute's requirements for qualifications of experts. In addition, Dr. Scialli appears to be qualified to diagnose and discuss retardation issues. Indeed, the defense relies on his testimony to support its own points about the diagnosis of retardation. And precluding Dr. Scialli's testimony would have left the State without an expert on mental retardation. His qualifications in this instance bear on the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. The court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Dr. Scialli to testify.