History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Hamilton
1 CA-CR 16-0166
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • 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)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Hamilton
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Arizona
Date Published: Aug 24, 2017
Docket Number: 1 CA-CR 16-0166
Court Abbreviation: Ariz. Ct. App.