State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado
234 Ariz. 590, 325 P.3d 996, 687 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 9 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Arizona Rule of Evidence 702(d) does not bar the admission of 'cold' expert testimony, which educates the trier of fact about general principles without application to the specific facts of the case, provided the testimony satisfies the rule's other requirements for admissibility.
Facts:
- Martin Salazar-Mercado was accused of sexually abusing two minors: his cousin’s daughter and his step-son.
- The child victims delayed reporting the alleged sexual abuse.
- One of the victims changed her version of events between her initial report and the trial.
- The children had difficulty pinpointing the specific timing of the alleged abusive events.
Procedural Posture:
- The State indicted Martin Salazar-Mercado in trial court on multiple counts of child molestation and sexual conduct with a minor.
- Before trial, Salazar-Mercado filed a motion to preclude the testimony of the State's expert witness, Dr. Wendy Dutton.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- Following a trial where Dr. Dutton testified, the jury convicted Salazar-Mercado on most counts.
- Salazar-Mercado (appellant) appealed the convictions to the Arizona Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Salazar-Mercado (petitioner) sought review from the Arizona Supreme Court (highest court), which granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Arizona Rule of Evidence 702(d), which requires an expert to have reliably applied principles and methods to the facts of the case, bar the admission of 'cold' expert testimony that provides general, educational information without application to the specific facts of the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Timmer
No. Arizona Rule of Evidence 702(d) does not bar the admission of 'cold' expert testimony that educates the jury on general principles without applying them to the specific facts of the case. The court reasoned that Rule 702(d) is ambiguous, as it could be interpreted to either mandate application to case facts or to require reliability only if such application is made. Looking to the identical federal rule for guidance, the court found that the Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 explicitly state that the rule was not intended to 'alter the venerable practice' of allowing experts to educate the factfinder about general principles. Therefore, subsection (d) is a conditional requirement that applies only when an expert purports to connect their testimony to the case's specific facts. In this case, Dr. Dutton's testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) was permissible because it could help the jury understand potentially confusing behaviors like delayed reporting and inconsistent statements, thus satisfying Rule 702(a)'s requirement of helpfulness, without improperly commenting on the specific victims' credibility.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of Arizona's recently adopted Daubert standard, confirming that the state's conformity with Federal Rule of Evidence 702 did not abolish the established practice of admitting general, educational expert testimony. The ruling affirms the utility of 'cold' experts, particularly in criminal cases like child sexual abuse, where a victim's behavior may seem counterintuitive to a lay jury. By allowing experts to provide context on general behavioral patterns without opining on a specific witness's credibility, the court preserves a critical tool for litigants to help juries understand complex evidence and prevents the expert from usurping the jury's fact-finding role.
