Court Opinion

ID: 9845739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:27:16.691429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:20.766068
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Presiding Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the decision reached by the majority, but I do so on the basis of McCarty v. State, 765 P.2d 1215, 1218 (Okl. Cr.1988), wherein we stated:
Bolstering the credibility of complaining witnesses through expert testimony usurps the jury’s fact-finding function, because it is the sole responsibility of the jurors to assess the credibility of wit*1178nesses in light of their own experience, and no expert assistance is necessary. [United States v. Binder, 769 F.2d 595, 602 (9th Cir.1985)]. Expert testimony should not be permitted if it invades the province of the trier of fact. United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.1973).