Court Opinion

ID: 9695034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:04:41.627857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:07.733538
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the majority opinion to the extent that it states:
[Allowing an expert witness to give his opinion as to whether an element of an offense has been satisfied is an invasion of the province of the jury.
[[Image here]]
But Dr. Maningas’ testimony went beyond medical matters. Dr. Maningas was asked to apply his medical observations to a legal definition and give his opinion whether that legal definition had been satisfied. It is the jury’s role to decide whether the elements of an offense have been met. It was a clear abuse of the trial court’s discretion to allow Dr. Maningas to give his opinion on an element of the offense.
(Citation omitted) (emphasis added).
In view of these statements, how can the majority possibly “find beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have convicted Lybarger even if Dr. Maningas had not given his opinion on the ‘ultimate issue?’ ” (Citation omitted.) I cannot. Therefore, I join the dissent of Justice Amundson.