State v. Hamilton
1 CA-CR 16-0166
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2017Background
- Hamilton, the victim's mother's boyfriend, lived with the family and began abusing the victim at age 12, with sexual intercourse beginning at age 14.
- He was convicted of two counts of molestation of a child (Class 2, dangerous crime against children), one count of sexual conduct with a minor under 15 (Class 2, D.C.C.), and four counts of sexual conduct with a minor under 18 (Class 6).
- The trial included expert testimony from Dr. Christina Schopen, who was blind to the victim and did not interview her.
- Hamilton's defense argued the victim falsely accused him as retaliation for strict parental discipline.
- The superior court sentenced him to concurrent 17-year terms on the molestation counts, a consecutive 20-year term for sexual conduct with a minor, and lifetime probation on the four under-18 counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert on credibility | Hamilton contends Schopen improperly opined on truthfulness. | Hamilton argues the testimony about false allegations misstates the issue and affected credibility. | No error; testimony not improper and not fundamental error. |
| Prosecutorial vouching | Hamilton asserts prosecutor vouched for credibility via examining the expert and closing remarks. | Hamilton claims improper personal credibility opinion by prosecutor. | Not improper; closing argument allowed reasonable inferences and did not constitute vouching. |
| Effect of potential error | Waiver of some evidentiary objections should be reviewed only for fundamental error. | The issues were raised as fundamental errors due to their impact on verdict. | Court conducted fundamental error review and found no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boggs, 218 Ariz. 325 (Ariz. 2008) (expert credibility testimony improper)
- State v. Lindsey, 151 Ariz. 378 (Ariz. 1986) (veracity determinations lie with jury)
- State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (Ariz. 1993) (closing arguments may summarize evidence)
- State v. Vincent, 159 Ariz. 418 (Ariz. 1989) (prosecutorial vouching forms)
- State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (Ariz. 2005) (waiver and fundamental error review)
