Court Opinion

ID: 9619263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:25:07.210551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:15.698862
License: Public Domain

HAYS, Justice,
concurring in the result:
I concur in the result but I take exception to the broad sweep of the majority opinion. As I indicated in my dissent in State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983), I am reluctant to see the expert witness take over the function of the jury in testing the credibility of a witness. A part of the expert’s testimony would permit the expert to say that the usual manner of testing credibility of a witness cannot be applied to a retardate or person of low intelligence. From that point the jury must follow the path laid out by the expert. Next, the poor, shy, inexperienced, uneducated, inarticulate witness will have to have his credibility, or lack thereof, explained by an expert.
As a final word on this issue, I must also inquire of the majority: are we paving the way to a judicially .imposed defense of diminished responsibility?
In all honesty, I must concede that the trial court should perhaps have permitted the expert to testify generally as to mental retardation. For that reason I concur in the result.