Andrews v. State, 286 P.3d 780

Dale Andrews charged with second-degree sexual assault for alleged penetration of T.P. while incapacitated.
State did not list nurse who examined T.P. as an expert; defense moved to preclude expert testimony.
Nurse Junge testified at trial about the examination and injuries; trial court allowed without specific notice.
Junge testified that vaginal abrasions and tearing patterns were unlikely from consensual activity.
Junge’s testimony included observations and opinions based on training; jury convicted Andrews.
On appeal, Andrews argued lack of notice toward expert testimony violated Rule 16(b)(1)(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lack of notice on expert testimony was reversible	Andrews (state) failed to issue timely notice.	Andrews was not surprised by substance; notice not required.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; affirmed.
Whether treating nurse testimony can be admitted as expert without disclosure	Junge’s opinion testimony should be disclosed as expert.	Treating clinicians may provide hybrid testimony without separate expert disclosure.	Admissible hybrid testimony; no abuse of discretion.
Whether Miller v. Phillips and related authority support admission without notice	Pretrial notice required for expert opinions.	Treating professionals’ opinions may be admitted without disclosure.	Rules permit treating professionals’ opinions; not error to admit.

Miller v. Phillips, 959 P.2d 1247 (Alaska 1998) (treating physicians' hybrid testimony may be admitted without expert disclosure)
Getchell v. Lodge, 65 P.3d 50 (Alaska 2003) (investigating officer may base opinions on expertise with no prejudice)
Worden v. State, 213 P.3d 144 (Alaska App. 2009) (cited regarding admissibility of mixed lay/expert testimony)
Russell v. Anchorage, 706 P.2d 687 (Alaska App. 1985) (pretrial notice issues and scope of witness testimony)