Court Opinion

ID: 9505464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:05:05.067551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:30.682228
License: Public Domain

BOEHM, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to note that the admissibility of Dr. Ofshe's testimony under Indiana Evidence Rule 702 was not addressed by Miller or the State. Jurisdictions that have considered the admissibility of expert testimony as to false confessions under various versions of Evidence Rule 702 have split on that issue. Compare United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126 (1st Cir.1995); United States v. Holl, 974 F.Supp. 1198 (C.D.Ill.1997); Boyer v. Florida, - So.2d --, 2002 WL 925015 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. May 9, 2002) with People v. Son, 79 Cal.App.4th 224, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 (2000), Kansas v. Cobb, 48 P.3d 855 (Kan.Ct.App.2002); New Jersey v. Free, 8351 N.J.Super. 203, 798 A.2d 83 (App.Div.2002).