State of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercado
232 Ariz. 256
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- In Oct. 2010 two children (V.S. and H.B.) accused Martin Salazar-Mercado of repeated sexual abuse; he was arrested and later tried.
- The State called Dr. Wendy Dutton, a forensic child-interviewing expert, to testify about general characteristics and behavior of child sexual-abuse victims.
- Salazar-Mercado moved to preclude Dutton under Ariz. R. Evid. 702, arguing she was a “cold” expert who did not apply her methods to the facts and therefore failed Rule 702(d) (and (a)–(c)).
- At trial V.S. testified but was uncertain whether digital penetration occurred; a detective who observed V.S.’s interview testified that V.S. had disclosed digital penetration. Defense objected as hearsay.
- The trial court allowed Dutton’s general testimony and admitted the detective’s recounting of V.S.’s prior inconsistent statement; defendant was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor and multiple counts of child molestation and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Salazar-Mercado) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of general ("cold") expert testimony under Ariz. R. Evid. 702(d) | Expert may educate jurors on general principles; such testimony is helpful and admissible if expert is qualified, reliable, and testimony "fits" the case | Rule 702(d) requires the expert to apply principles and methods to the case facts; a "cold" expert who does not apply methods should be excluded | Court affirmed that Rule 702(d) does not per se bar general/"cold" experts; trial court must gatekeep for qualifications, reliability, assistance, and whether testimony "fits" the facts (no abuse of discretion) |
| Admissibility of detective’s testimony recounting victim’s prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence (Rule 801/403) | Prior inconsistent statement admissible substantively when declarant testifies and is cross-examined; probative value supports admission | Even if admissible as substantive evidence, it should be excluded under Rule 403 because prejudicial and the only evidence of penetration | Court held admission was not unduly prejudicial under Allred factors; probative value outweighed prejudice and no fundamental error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial courts act as gatekeepers assessing reliability of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies flexibly to all expert testimony)
- State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472 (1986) (expert testimony on child-victim behavior may aid jurors)
- State v. Allred, 134 Ariz. 274 (1982) (factors for excluding prior inconsistent statements under Rule 403)
- McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., 231 Ariz. 244 (App. 2013) (application of amended Ariz. R. Evid. 702)
- State v. Becerra, 231 Ariz. 200 (App. 2013) (standard of review for viewing facts in light most favorable to verdict)