Opinion ID: 867266
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expert Opinion on Ultimate Issue

Text: ¶ 16 Chappell argues Dr. Hu's testimony that drowning was a horrifying experience and a 10 on scale of 1 to 10 was improper expert opinion on an ultimate issue. We review evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of expert opinions for abuse of discretion. See State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 297, 660 P.2d 1208, 1224 (1983). ¶ 17 Arizona Rule of Evidence 704 permits expert testimony that embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact, as long as the opinion assist[s] the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Ariz. R. Evid. 704 & cmt. However, [w]itnesses are not permitted as experts on how juries should decide cases, id., and trial courts should exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, Ariz. R. Evid. 403. ¶ 18 Chappell cites two out-of-state cases in which experts explicitly opined on whether the murder had been committed in the manner of the statutory aggravator. See State v. Hamilton, 681 So.2d 1217, 1225-26 (La.1996) (expert testified murder was heinous, atrocious or cruel); Commonwealth v. Crawley, 514 Pa. 539, 526 A.2d 334, 346-47 (1987) (expert defined torture as the production of conscious pain and testified that the murders satisfied the definition of the word torture). But, here, Dr. Hu merely testified about the experience of drowning and did not opine whether Devon's murder was committed in an especially cruel manner. His comments neither were improper nor embraced an ultimate issue.