Court Opinion

ID: 9572513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:42:22.332463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:18.411896
License: Public Domain

Pekelis, J.
I dissent. The trial court's exclusion of the expert testimony on eyewitness identification was proper, and I would affirm.
The offer of proof by Dr. Geoffrey Loftus was, for the most part, an extremely general discourse on memory. Specifically, Dr. Loftus only opined in conclusory fashion that (1) stress can impair mental functioning, (2) older individuals are substantially less able to carry out any task involving cognitive abilities, (3) the term "weapon focus" means that one will "tend to pay attention to the weapon at the expense of other objects . . . such as the face," and (4) "unconscious transference" refers to a phenomenon in which "you remember — you recognize information, let's say a face that you have seen before . . . but you place it at the wrong place in time."3
The trial court noted that the testimony
doesn't add anything to what has already happened here. I might feel differently if he had more information about this particular case, if he had in fact talked to the victim . . . because the issue isn't so much whether or not what he had to say is true but whether or not the concerns of memory would apply to this case.
The court concluded that the testimony would not assist the trier of fact.
*491As we said in State v. Johnson, 49 Wn. App. 432, 743 P.2d 290 (1987), where, as here, the trial court's express reason for excluding the proffered testimony was that it would not be helpful to the trier of fact, we will, in the great majority of cases, find this a proper exercise of discretion. Johnson, 49 Wn. App. at 439 (citing State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208, 1220 (1983)). To determine whether the case falls outside "the great majority,' the appellate court must do more than mechanistically apply the three numbered criteria in State v. Moon, 45 Wn. App. 692, 697, 726 P.2d 1263 (1986). As we explained in Johnson, exclusion of proper eyewitness testimony will be error when the three Moon factors are present and the case is a close and confusing one which cries out for an explanation which the proffered testimony would provide. Moon, 45 Wn. App. at 698. In other words, there must be serious factual discrepancies and a proper "fit" between those discrepancies and the expert testimony. In Moon, for example, the witness' initial description of the suspect did not match the defendant at all. Expert testimony on "post event" information purported to explain this discrepancy. Moon, at 699.
Turning to the case before us, I see no serious discrepancies requiring explanation. The victim described his assailant as about 35 years old and 5 feet 9 inches to 5 feet 10 inches. Taylor is 24 years old and 5 feet 8 inches. The physical differences between a man in his mid-twenties and mid-thirties are frequently subtle, and may seem particularly so to a 79-year-old. This is hardly the sort of "discrepancy" which requires expert explanation.4 Furthermore, Dr. Loftus did not address any particular phenomenon of memory that would help to explain this discrepancy.
*492The distinctive feature of this case is simply the victim's lack of certainty in his identification of Taylor. When asked at trial if the defendant Taylor was his assailant, he stated, "His eyes look a little like the man who shot me, but I don't know if he had a mustache." His other testimony on identification consisted of, "[i]t looks a lot like him" and "I'm not positive this is the man." When asked "how positive," he replied, "80 percent". In addition, the victim conceded that it was difficult to see the person during the robbery because when the two were face to face, the assailant's face was obscured by the gun he pointed at the victim's face obscuring his own face.
While this may be a weak case, it is not confusing. Furthermore, Dr. Loftus' proffered testimony would still have to be of assistance to the trier of fact in order to compel the admission of the expert testimony. Here, the jury could easily conclude that being robbed and shot in one's own bedroom is a stressful event which could affect memory. Likewise, the prominence of the weapon was acknowledged by the victim's own testimony, making any further testimony on "weapon-focus" superfluous. The victim's physical impairments, advanced age, and the generally tentative nature of his testimony also established in themselves the possibility5 that he had problems with "cognitive functioning."
Finally, there was an insufficient factual foundation for admission of testimony on the doctrine of "unconscious transfer." Defense counsel elicited from the victim only the fact that he had, at some unspecified time, gone to Denny's, Wendy's, and Chicago Red Hots in the Lake City area. The record is totally silent on how often, when, and which ones. The defendant then testified only that he had, at one time *493or another, been employed in each of those places.6 Again, there was no reference to where, when, or for how long. This evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate a significant probability that the two had ever seen each other before. Thus, the exclusion of expert testimony on the subject was proper.
In summary, this case does not fall within the narrow range of cases where exclusion of the testimony was error. I would affirm.

Dr. Loftus also discussed a number of other influences on memory, such as the use of drugs, the effect of amnesia, and the effect of bias in questions or tests, none of which bore any apparent connection to the facts in this case.

The confusion over the mustache is not a "discrepancy" of the sort discussed in Moon. Here, it was the victim himself who spontaneously noted, while making his initial identification of Taylor, that he didn't remember the mustache. Thus, no unconscious forces appeared to be at work which required explanation.

Dr. Loftus' testimony would have added little more, since Dr. Loftus had never interviewed the victim or obtained any specific information about his cognitive functioning. Thus, nothing connected these generalities about older persons with the particular person in this case.

The record is replete with evidence that Taylor's work record was one of employment for very brief periods.